1951-06-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 398, respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Bennett.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 399 (from the Senate), respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the railway of the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 400 (from the Senate), to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Motions agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


[Stage Direction]
IN CONSTRUCTION Mr. Hodgson:
1.	What quantity of steel, in tons, has been used to date in the construction of (a) postal station B, Montreal; (b) postal terminal, Montreal?
2.	What is the cost in Canadian dollars of the steel so used in each casa?
Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) 853 tons; (b) 2,000 tons.
2.	(a) $249,515; (b) $502,000.


WHEAT PRICES-FLOUR FOR CONSUMPTION IN CANADA
Mr. Fair:: Has the government given consideration to increasing the price of wheat sold to millers for making flour for consumption in Canada to the level received for class II wheat, during the 1950-51 crop year?


Mr. Howe:: Perhaps I can answer this
question orally. The government has given consideration to the price of wheat sold to Canadian millers, and has decided to make no change.

On the orders of the day:


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the answer given to the second question on today's order paper, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what compensation the wheat growers of the prairie provinces are receiving in exchange for subsidizing Canadian consumers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the wheat
growers of the west are not subsidizing Canadian consumers. The Canadian consumer is paying the same price that any other man in the world pays for his eating of Canadian wheat.


Robert Fair: Class II wheat included? I think not.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mrs. Fairclough:: How many civil servants are under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission: (a) men (i) temporary; (ii) permanent; (b) women (i) temporary; (ii) permanent?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the three bills which were introduced this morning and given first reading are the items of legislation to which he referred yesterday in answer to a question of mine as being the only legislation that we may expect in addition to what was on the order paper yesterday.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yes, these are the three bills. Unless something unforeseen happens, so far as I know there is not likely to be any other legislation introduced.
4548	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ECONOMIC CONTROLS



CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production? In view of press reports of discussions between the minister and United States officials concerning economic controls, will the minister make a statement to the house on these discussions before the session concludes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the talks were purely exploratory. No decisions were arrived at. Our discussions were in preparation for further talks that will take place shortly. There is nothing to report to the house, and there will be nothing to report during the session.



CRIMINAL CASES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Roonay (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice, arising out of an account carried in the Globe and Mail -


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Hendrick Rooney: In the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: It is the same thing.


James Hendrick Rooney: The question is:
Lacks $300 to launch appeal; must serve life for slaying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


James Hendrick Rooney: All right. Will the minister look into the case as outlined?


An hon. Member:: Order.


James Hendrick Rooney: Will the minister look into this case and have legislation passed so that a horrible thing such as the lack of money-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Hendrick Rooney: -will not deprive any person of the chance of appealing a sentence on a criminal charge?



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the 

parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Justice. Has he taken note of the announcement made the day before yesterday by an official of the Bell Telephone Company that, as a result of recent increases in taxation, his company will have to seek an early increase in telephone rates? Will he bring this matter to the attention of his genial friend, the Minister of Finance?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I read that item in the press, as has the minister.



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF STAFF IN VIEW OF EXTRA HOURS OF SITTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the house is sitting today until eleven o'clock tonight, may I express the hope that consideration is being given to some appropriate compensation for members of the Hansard staff-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and other employees of the House of Commons, for being required to work these unreasonable hours.



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1951-52

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1952, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 395, to provide for old age assistance.	_
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is part of Canada's new program for old age security, climaxing a quarter-century of progress in this field.
The government's twofold plan for old age assistance and universal pensions represents the greatest single advance made in this country in our provisions for senior Canadians. It is a national vote of confidence in Canada's capacity to provide for the security of its older citizens.

Legislation will be introduced in parliament in the fall session, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has indicated, to provide universal pensions at 70 years. This present old age assistance bill makes provision for those in the 65-69 age group who are in need of aid, as well as for those 70 years and over who cannot qualify for the universal pension. In a separate measure, also to be considered this session, allowances for the blind will be continued with certain relaxations in the ceilings on income.
The full implications of this program may not yet be fully realized. Let me remind the house of its broad outlines when it is fully in effect:
Old age assistance will be provided for an estimated one-third of those in the 65-69 age group, or about 145,000 persons.
Universal pensions of $40 a month will be paid to 715,000 Canadians of 70 and over, including 305,000 who are now receiving old age pensions.
In the first year a total of 860,000 Canadians, starting at age 65 will benefit under this new old age security program, which will cost about $410 million a year.
Since the first Old Age Pensions Act of 1927, our provision for old age security has been revised on several occasions. Twice during, the past four years it has been my privilege, as a member of this government, to introduce improved and expanded legislation to provide added security for our aged and blind citizens. As a result of these improvements, which have more than doubled the costs of pensions to the federal and provincial governments in this period: the total number of aged and blind pensioners has increased by nearly 100,000 to 313,371 at March 31, 1951; the basic statutory rate for pensions has been doubled-rising from $20 to $40; the income and residence requirements have been substantially liberalized; the citizenship requirement has been eliminated; the age of eligibility for blind pensioners has been reduced from 40 to 21; many provisions of the regulations have been improved.
In these past four years almost as much has been done to improve old age and blind pensions as in the preceding twenty. In addition, since 1949, pensioners have been paid in every province and territory of Canada.
While substantial progress has been made in recent years there was, however, no question that more could be done to improve our pensions program. But consideration had to be given to matters of constitutional responsibility as well as to matters involving financial limitations.
Old Age Assistance Act
That is why the federal government asked parliament last year to set up a special joint committee on old age security. Careful consideration was given by this committee to all aspects of the problem, including the burden resting on the provincial governments.
Since its proposals of 1945 to the provinces, the federal government had consistently favoured an old age security program consisting of old age assistance of up to $30 at 65, and universal pensions of $30 at 70.
The parliamentary committee, an all-party group, while recommending a higher basic pension than the 1945 proposals, otherwise confirmed this view in paragraph 51 on page 108 of its report:
51. All things considered, therefore, the committee is of the opinion that the most suitable old age security plan for Canada under present circumstances consists of a twofold program as follows:
(a)	A universal pay-as-you-go program applicable to all persons 70 years of age and over, based on the contributory principle and administered by the federal government. The benefit should be a flat, uniform amount of $40 a month for all eligible persons, and eligibility should be based solely on age and a suitable residence qualification.
(b)	For the age group 65 and over not eligible for the universal benefit, old age assistance at the rate of $40 a month should be available, subject to an eligibility test in some respects similar to that which exists under the present old age assistance program, but modified to take account of the different characteristics of the age group to which this test is to apply, and adjusted in such a way as to recognize to a greater extent than at present the desirability of encouraging recipients to earn supplemental income.
At the federal-provincial conference in December, 1950, the Prime Minister announced that these proposals were generally acceptable to the government. He said that the universal pension would be proceeded with as soon as there was unanimous agreement from the provinces on the constitutional amendment required.
The provinces all indicated their agreement with the federal program outlined, and subsequently approved the amendment enabling the federal government to establish a contributory system of pensions.
In May of this year, substantial agreement was also reached with all the provinces on the provisions to be made for the 65-69 group. This present measure reflects that agreement in every respect, and goes beyond it.
The universal pension will be paid from January of next year. When parliament has enacted the measure now before it, old age assistance will also be paid at the same time, if the provinces then pass similar legislation to take advantage of the federal offer.
Since the provinces will be relieved of the cost of pensions at 70 and over-of which they were paying one-quarter, and the federal government three-quarters of the basic

Old Age Assistance Act $40 pension-in sharing equally with the federal government the cost of old age assistance at 65, their costs will be no greater than at present.
The present measure for old age assistance is a natural extension of the 1945 proposals of the federal government; it was part of the twofold recommendation of the joint parliamentary committee; it is an integral part of that ideal old age security program of which I spoke to this house on March 10 of last year, as follows:
What we wish to do is to develop, within the limits only of the financial capacity of our people and with due regard to our over-all commitments in all fields of social security and other governmental responsibilities, the simplest, most effective and most humane system of old age security that it is possible for us to devise.
We wish to do this not in open disregard of provincial rights or interests or concerns, but in full consultation, agreement and partnership with the provinces.
I am sure that on examination of the bill now before the house, all members will agree that it implements fully the recommendations of the parliamentary committee with respect to the 65 to 69 age group, with the single exception that the residence qualification, instead of being fifteen years, is placed at twenty years, for reasons which I shall outline later when we deal with the matter in committee.
The present measure introduces for the first time the expression "old age assistance", in conformity with the committee's recommendations. The term "pension" will henceforth be reserved for the universal payments to those over 70, thus maintaining a clear distinction between the two types of payments to aged persons.
As the members of this house know, the sharing of costs with the provinces on a fifty-fifty basis, the age of eligibility at 65 and the $40 maximum amount of pension, are all in accordance with the recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee.
These provisions also meet the wishes of the provinces generally, as expressed at our meeting with them on May 23 and 24 last.
In deciding the payments to those between 65 and 69 on a selective basis, the government accepts the view of the parliamentary committee that the universal pension should not be applied to this group. There are several reason for this decision:
1.	It would involve an additional expenditure of $152 million in the first year alone.
2.	The number in this age group can be expected to increase at a greater rate than the entire population. If universal pensions were paid at 65, the cost by 1971 would amount to $782 million annually.


3.	The needs of the two groups are entirely different, since a great number of those between 65 and 69 are still actively engaged in productive employment, while the great majority of those 70 and over are retired.
4.	Payment of a universal pension at 65 would tend to encourage premature retirement at a time when a full labour force is needed in the national interest.
5.	The people of Canada are not prepared at this time, with other priorities of unmet need, to divert such a substantial proportion of the national income to old age security purposes.
6.	Finally, the provinces, who are required to participate in the program for the 65-69 age group on a fifty-fifty basis, feel the need of retaining some form of eligibility test.
The income ceilings in the bill before the house, which conform with the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, are more generous than those in the present Old Age Pensions Act.
The total allowable income, including old age assistance, has been increased as follows:
-for a single person, from $600 to $720;
-for a married couple, from $1,080 to
$1,200;
-for a married couple, with one blind spouse, from $1,200 to $1,320.
These adjustments recognize the desirability of encouraging those receiving old age assistance to earn supplemental income.
Here the government has gone beyond the recommendations of the committee in permitting the receipt of additional amounts, not only in earnings but in respect to income from other sources as well.
The question of income ceilings was fully discussed with the provinces at our conference last month. No province indicated a strong desire to set the ceilings any higher than those in the present bill. The majority of the provinces felt that the ceilings in the present Old Age Pensions Act were high enough.
The federal government has decided that in order to give each province the opportunity to decide for itself the limits of its generosity in this respect, the maximum should be set high enough to permit each province to go as far as it feels prepared to go.
While some provinces have indicated that these income ceilings might be too high, others have some doubts as to the advisability of commencing payment at as early an age as 65. Still others wish to set additional conditions of eligibility.
The federal government feels that, within the limits of administrative feasibility, each

province should be given the greatest possible leeway in establishing requirements to meet its particular capacities and needs.
Section 7 of this bill therefore makes it possible for each province, in its agreement with the federal government, to make its own provisions-within the framework of the federal measure-for the following: the maximum amount of assistance; the income ceilings; the minimum age; any special conditions of eligibility.
The federal government, of course-and this I underline-hopes, both for administrative reasons and on grounds of equity, that all provinces will ultimately adopt a uniform pattern in order to take the fullest advantage of the scope of this federal legislation.
In the meantime, it is not the intention of the government to insist on imposing this new program on all provinces on a "take it or leave it" basis. As the Prime Minister pointed out when he discussed this matter at the December conference with the provinces, it will be for each province to decide in the light of its own circumstances whether or not it will accept the offer contained in the federal legislation. None the less, if any province comes to the conclusion that it cannot, for reasons of its own, implement this part of the program in its jurisdiction at the present time, or that it can do so only on a limited and partial basis, this will not affect the federal government's offer as it applies to the other provinces. Nor will it in any way affect the implementation of the universal pension program.
I have dealt with the main features of the new legislation as they relate to the age of eligibility, the amount of assistance, the division of costs, and the income ceilings. Let me now mention a number of special changes which are necessary to note in order to appreciate the comprehensive scope of this bill.
Serious criticism has been made of the provision, which has been in the Old Age Pensions Act since 1927, for recovery from the estates of deceased pensioners. I now wish to announce that the government has decided to eliminate this requirement from this old age assistance measure.
This provision has always given rise to much misunderstanding. The thinking behind it was that if a pensioner left a substantial estate, it should benefit the taxpayer who had provided him with pension rather than someone who had shown little interest in the pensioner during his lifetime.
In actual fact, the total amounts recovered have never been great and have seldom
Old Age Assistance Act exceeded one-half of one per cent of pensions paid. In some provinces, either because of the more vigorous efforts of provincial pension authorities, or because persons with substantial means found their way on to the pension rolls, the amounts recovered have been greater than in other provinces.
In view of all this, the advisability of keeping this provision in the new bill was carefully weighed. It was decided that circumstances now will be considerably different from those under the old act where pensioners would remain on pension until death.
Under the new act, most persons receiving old age assistance will reach the age of 70 and transfer to the new universal pension, passing beyond the control of the provincial old age assistance authorities. The recovery provision is therefore no longer practical except for those who die between the ages of 65 and 69.
Some provinces, however, may still wish to continue this recovery practice under authority of their own legislation. The federal government cannot prevent this, but it is provided under section 7(d) that if a province does make such recoveries under its own authority, it must refund to the federal treasury half of all recoveries made, and the reason for that of course will be obvious.
Under section 10 of the Old Age Pensions Act, a province cannot be reimbursed by the federal government for any pension covering that portion of the month following the pensioner's death. This provision has always been unsatisfactory. Section 5, subsection 2, of this new legislation permits the province to be reimbursed: by the federal government if it pays a full pension for the month during which the recipient dies.
One additional feature of the new bill that I should like to emphasize is that it makes no special exclusion of Indians. In this bill, our native population is treated on a basis of complete equality with all other residents of Canada.
As most hon. members know, the present Old Age Pensions Act excludes from its benefits persons who are defined as Indians under the Indian Act. The federal government has for some years sought to remove this barrier against those who have a claim to being the first citizens of this country. This clause has remained in the act largely because of the wishes of the provinces, but I am now happy to say that, at our recent conference, the provinces generally agreed to our suggestion that Indians be placed on the same footing as others.

Old Age Assistance Act I am confident that experience will bear out the equity and justice of extending to our native population the benefits of this new forward step in our social security program.
I have now covered the main provisions of this old age assistance bill. I should add, however, that, unlike the Old Age Pensions Act, this bill makes no provision for the blind. This will be done in separate legislation to be introduced later this day, and to be known as the Blind Persons Act.
I shall reserve for the discussion of that bill any comments I may wish to make on the reasons why we have decided to separate the provisions relating to the blind' from the main provisions of the present bill relating to our older citizens.
The house will, for the present, I think, be satisfied to know that the new act will make full provision for the continuation of assistance to our blind citizens, and every safeguard will be employed to ensure that there is no interruption in payments during the transition from one act to another.
There are a number of other significant changes in terminology in the present measure, but I think these can be left to the detailed discussion which will take place in committee.
Section 7 of this bill relates to the form of agreement with the provinces. As hon. members are aware, legislation of this kind requires not only enabling legislation on the part of the provinces, but an agreement signed by the provincial and federal authorities.
Several sections scattered throughout the present Old Age Pensions Act deal with matters to be included in these agreements. From the point of view of orderly drafting, we have brought together all these points in this section 7.
At the time the parliamentary committee studied the costs of providing old age security, it estimated the probable costs of an old age assistance program of the kind set out in this bill. With little exact knowledge as to the nature of the eligibility test which might be included, and with no precise means for determining how many persons in the age group concerned might come under the legislation, the committee estimated the probable cost to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $64 million yearly. On further consideration, these estimates still seem to be accurate.
On the fifty-fifty basis proposed in this legislation, and using these estimates, this would mean an annual expenditure of $32 million by the ten provinces and an equal expenditure by the federal government.
We know that the number of persons between the ages of 65 and 69 is substantially


lower than the number of those 70 and over, and that more of the younger group are actively employed and self-supporting. We therefore expect that the numbers qualifying for old age assistance will not exceed one-third of the total number of persons in Canada between the ages of 65 and 69.
If this estimate proves to be correct, it will mean that approximately 145,000 persons will receive old age assistance during the first year of operation of the new act. Since some provinces may decide on a higher minimum age, lower income ceilings or special conditions of eligibility, the actual numbers may not reach this estimate, although we hope, as I said earlier, that a uniform practice will be adopted throughout the country.
The federal share of the cost of the program will come from the consolidated revenue fund and not from the fund to be created for the financing of universal pensions, which will have from the start a contributory feature.
The provincial share will not represent an additional expenditure but simply a transfer out of the savings to the provinces when the federal government in January next relieves them of the cost of the provincial share of pensions payments now being made by them to those in the 70 and over group. In no case do we expect the provincial share to be greater than the cost they would incur next year if the Old Age Pensions Act were continued in its present form. In most cases provincial expenditures should be somewhat less than the savings which will result from federal assumption of pension payments to those persons 70 years of age and over.
In my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I spoke of this old age assistance measure as one part of Canada's new program for old age security. The all-party parliamentary committee, in adopting this program, gave unanimous support to it, which was a remarkable tribute both to the soundness of the government's plan and to the impartiality of the members of the committee in this vital field of human welfare. I now want to say to the chairman and every member of that committee, representing every political party in this house, that parliament and the country will be grateful for the serious-minded purpose and industry it displayed, and the objective approach it demonstrated in dealing with this difficult program.
As I have already noted, the program recommended by the committee, and now being enacted by the government, is substantially the same as that first proposed to the provinces in 1945.
When the measure is taken by later generations of recent progress in Canada, it will be seen even more clearly than now that this

generation of Canadians has developed an enlarged concept of social justice and a recognition of the fact that in our parliamentary democratic society the highest responsibility of government is to promote the well-being of its people.
The history of this quarter-century from 1926 to 1951, beginning with the abortive effort to pass our first old age pensions act and coming to fruition in this year's vast and comprehensive old age security program, is the story of our awakening as a nation to a new understanding of what can be done, through government, for our older citizens and their security.
This concern for our senior citizens is the touchstone to the true quality of our way of life. It is one of the proofs of our claim to a civilization, inspired by the immutable principles on which our society has been founded. It is one of the best signs of the strength of the democracy we cherish.
What we are doing today to provide assistance for Canadian men and women at 65, and what we will do before this year is out to complete our pattern for old age security, will bring Canada in this field into the forefront of the nations of the world. Canada's old age security program is a symbol of our determination to work for the well-being of all our citizens. This humanitarian action, like every measure for social progress, helps to counter communism and all other alien and heartless systems in which the individual, young or old, is the last and not the first concern of government.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the house will give unanimous support to the motion for second reading of this bill.
It may be one of the curious anomalies of debate in this house that the importance of a measure is not always indicated by the length of time spent in discussing it. It seems to me this bill is so clear and simple and limited in its terms that it need not give rise to a lengthy debate. For my part I think I can put my views on the principle of the bill into a relatively brief compass.
The bill, as compared with the statements which preceded it and the limited information given the house by the minister two days ago at the resolution stage, contains no particular surprises. When one expresses gratification that this bill has been introduced and has reached the present stage, one should not be taken as indicating complete satisfaction with the bill, or as entertaining the view that this is the answer to all hopes and the last word in legislation of this kind. The house will recognize at once the importance of the measure. The house will see in its
Old Age Assistance Act adoption today the culmination, in part, of the efforts of many people in this country and many members of this house, and the devoted efforts of all parties here to bring about a more comprehensive and adequate measure of security for those of our citizens who have reached advanced years and reduced earning power.
I think we would not do justice to the measure, however, if we did not endeavour to view it in true perspective, having regard especially to the emphasis placed by the minister in his remarks today on the part played by the special committee of both houses on social security which sat during the session of 1950, and on whose recommendations the government obviously has drawn so largely in preparing this bill.
This, of course, is an enabling bill. It could not be otherwise, having regard to the constitutional limitations imposed upon the power of parliament. That has some disadvantages, of course, from the point of view of parliament. It means that far more power is given to the government in the matter of negotiating agreements with the provinces than many of us like to see given. We like to see more of the provisions of important legislation of this, kind written into the terms of the bill rather than left to be determined by cabinet decision. In the second place, it must be a participating scheme on the part of the dominion and the provinces, with administration vested in the provinces. That is inescapable unless parliament were to adopt a scheme of universal pensions in this age group 65 to 69 as well as in the higher age group of 70 and over; and, of course, that has not been done.
The second disadvantage that flows from the fact that in its nature this is enabling legislation is that in effect the dominion is imposing certain terms which are set out in the bill. They are not loose and easy terms. In many respects they are rather stiff. It is true that this morning, at an opportune time, the minister announced a relaxation in the rigour of some of those terms, which I think the house will welcome. Nevertheless it means that in the type of scheme to which the bill commits the country the dominion does lay down certain terms which the provinces must meet if they are to receive a fifty per cent contribution from the dominion toward the cost of assistance for the age group 65 to 69.
I am afraid we are going to bring about a continuation of that not too happy situation where, when complaints do arise out of the administration of the act, and recipients of the assistance come up against some of the harder features of the terms laid down, we shall hear from the government the familiar
4554	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act excuse: That is a matter for the provinces; the provinces administer the scheme and therefore the responsibility must rest upon them. It seems to me that argument has never been fair to the provinces, having regard to the fact the dominion does lay down the basic terms upon which assistance may be obtained by the provinces toward provision made for pensions.
Let us be perfectly frank in dealing with this subject, and in facing, as we are bound to face, the problems that will arise in the future out of the administration of this scheme under the provinces. Let us be prepared to acknowledge, when these difficulties do arise, that they arise because the dominion lays down certain terms with which the provinces must comply, and the responsibility for the resultant condition is not fairly to be laid at the door of the provinces. I say that by way of seeking clarification of the situation and a frank and honest treatment of the kind of problem that is likely to arise in that respect from the type of measure that is under discussion.
There are several other provisions of this bill that merit comment in this debate. When commenting on these I naturally draw attention to those which fall short of meeting the hopes that one might have entertained for a measure of this kind. I draw attention also to these problems so that they can be viewed in their proper perspective. We do not wish the importance of this measure, or the benefits that are likely to flow from it, desirable as they are, to be exaggerated or misunderstood.
In the first place, the minister has drawn attention to the fact that this is a measure to give assistance. I think there is much to be said for the selection of the word "assistance", as being more properly descriptive of the type of benefits held out in this bill for the age group 65 to 69, than the word "pension". It is a much more appropriate word, and I am glad to see it in use.
I was happy to hear the minister put some emphasis upon it this morning.
I believe that any tendency to exaggerate the importance of the measure will be modified when we have regard to the amounts involved. We have heard a figure of $410 million used. Let us bear in mind that only a very small fraction of that is required for the scheme set forth in this bill concerning assistance for those in the 65 to 69 group. The great bulk of the expenditure that is to be provided this year by parliament for the assistance of persons of senior age goes, of course, to provide the universal pension for those 70 years of age


and over. By comparison with the amount involved under that measure, the amount at stake in this measure is relatively small. The bill contemplates the joint expenditure by the dominion and the provinces of $64 million per year, of which the dominion will contribute $32 million per year. The number who are likely to receive benefits under the bill, as the minister has indicated and as the committee estimated last year, is approximately 145,000. Those estimates, of course, cannot be expected to be too exact.
It will be interesting to see, in the light of experience during the first year or two of the life of this scheme, how many of the 145,000 persons will receive the full assistance contemplated by the bill, and how many will receive only a portion of it. Let us bear in mind that as long as this type of assistance follows the test that we are accustomed to call the means test, then obviously many persons are going to derive only partial benefits from the assistance scheme.
One interesting feature which I believe calls for comment, Mr. Speaker, is the monthly amount. The maximum established under this bill is $40, and that follows the recommendation of the committee. I think the members of the committee were conscious of the fact that $40 in 1950,- when they made their recommendation, was worth only about sixty cents per dollar in terms of pre-war purchasing power. Of course, that purchasing power has undergone a further shrinkage in the year that has elapsed since the committee tendered its report to parliament. Nevertheless, the problem of financing and the problem of inaugurating a new type of scheme with a new type of benefit called for a measure of caution on the part of the committee, and that has been carried forward into the present measure.
One of the leading features of this measure is the retention of the means test. I believe the minister has indicated some desire to skate away from that term, which has acquired, over the period of the last generation, a rather ugly meaning in the minds of many people. We more frequently hear from the minister the term "eligibility test".. The term may be a more polite expression, but I am afraid, sir, we have here the same' old means test in all its essentials. In dealing, with this point the minister has, in justification of this feature of the measure, put, forward two arguments. In the first place,, he has relied upon the recommendation of the committee, and, in the second place, he has drawn attention, quite properly, to the very great cost that would be involved.

When I spoke on the resolution stage of this measure two days ago, I reviewed as best I could the problem the committee faced in connection with the means test. It caused the special committee a great deal of difficulty. If the diligent chairman of that committee (Mr. Lesage) speaks on this measure, I am sure he will fully bear me out in that regard. The means test was condemned by almost every organization which sent representatives to the committee, and by almost every person experienced in the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act who testified. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the test inevitably penalizes the thrifty and creates unwarrantable intrusions on the part of state officials into the private affairs of the individual. Admittedly the means test did give rise to a certain undeniable degree of imposition on the authorities, because this means test, as we were freely told, had been improperly defeated by a good many applicants by reason of nondisclosure.
At best it is a difficult test to enforce, and the committee, therefore, Mr. Speaker, without a dissenting voice, recommended to the house that the means test ought to be abolished as to the age group 70 years of age and over.
There may at once appear to be a fundamental contradiction in the recommendations of the committee in proposing, on the one hand, that the means test should be abolished as to the age group 70 years and over, and1, on the other hand, that an eligibility test be retained for those in the age group 65 to 69. Well, sir, there is undeniably a measure of contradiction there. I think the house might as well be candid, and recognize the fact that the means test as applied to the age group 65 to 69 can hardly be expected to operate much more satisfactorily as to this group than it has been working with respect to the group 70 years of age and over. The bill maintains the essential elements of the same scheme, with all its objectionable features, in the new measures providing assistance to those 65 to 69. You are going to impose a relative penalty upon thrift; you are going to have the same kind of intrusion into the affairs of individuals; you are going to have the same difficulty of enforcement; you are going to have the same army of inspectors going about inquiring into the affairs of people.
Those of us on that committee who gave our consent to the report because it contained so much of value that everyone must recognize-at the same time regretting very much that force of circumstances, and particularly the cost, obliged the committee as to
Old Age Assistance Act the group 65 to 69 to confine itself to a scheme of continuing the eligibility test- will feel free, Mr. Speaker, to say here today that if we indulge in prophecy we shall not be surprised if, as the years advance and this new scheme for assistance to the group 65 to 69 begins to operate under the tests prescribed in this measure, we have the same difficulties, the same injustices in many cases as have existed hitherto. This, therefore, cannot be regarded as a final solution of this problem.
It is a compromise measure of the kind we accept so often in the house on the basis that it will greatly improve the present situation, will remove some of the present stresses on the social and economic fabric in the case of necessitous persons in this particular group. But it is not a satisfactory solution of the problem. I think on that point there will not be any great difference of opinion among those who sat on the committee. I think we all viewed with a measure of reluctance a recommendation that carried with it the same deficiencies that we had already condemned in the same test as to the group 70 years of age and over.
Now, sir, the other factor that the minister mentioned was the question of cost. Undoubtedly the provision of universal pensions for this group 65 to 69 would have involved an enormous cost. Bear in mind that the figures that the minister has given this morning, and the type of argument that he has used-and it runs through the report of the committee and the summary of the evidence which the report contains-picture the alternative as a universal pension at age 65. As time goes on and more experience is gained and more information collated in the light of administration of this new measure, it may be-and some of us will continue to be hopeful of this-that we shall devise within the age group 65 to 69, without going the full way to the universal pension which would be so enormously costly, some other method which will be better than the means test, and will be related to a system of financing which will be fair to all concerned.
There is a great problem. The committee did not have the final answer to it, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall look upon the views of the committee in this regard and on the present measure as of a somewhat tentative nature; that we shall examine closely, especially in the next two or three years, the operations of the new scheme as to the age group 65 to 69 and gather information; for there is much information to be gathered. The committee did one of its most useful
4556	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act pieces of work in gathering up under one cover a mass of information that had not been gathered together and centralized in that form before. There will be, I feel sure, a gold mine of information to be gathered in these next several years as the new scheme comes into operation and is administered.
The next feature of the measure that I should like to comment upon arises out of the means test, or at least is related to it. I refer to the permission to earn outside income, what the minister has, I think in somewhat exaggerated terms, referred to as encouragement that the bill gives to the earning of supplemental income on the part of this group. Sir, much has been made of the fact that the present supplemental income allowed under the Old Age Pensions Act, namely $120 a year, or $10 a month, is enlarged by this measure, as to the group 65 to 69, to $240 a year, or $20 a month. But the dollar has been stretched further in the past twelve months since the recommendation was made, and when the minister suggests that this represents more generous treatment than that accorded to such people anywhere else in the wide world, I think he is indulging in hyperbolical flights of fancy. Looking, Mr. Speaker, at the commendable purpose that the minister himself admitted, which justified earning of income on the part of this group, surely to confine that income to $20 a month in the case of an individual-and if you please, a total of $20 a month in the case of a married couple, both of whom are under old age pension, provided that neither of them is blind-is, it seems to me, not having very much regard to a realistic approach to methods by which we may attain the purpose that the minister has endorsed.
The minister says we want to encourage people in this age group to work. We do. But if earnings of a married couple are going to be confined to $20 a month, I do not think there is much inducement left for those people to go out and work. I do not see much encouragement there; 1 do not see much recognition there of some of the incontestable facts laid before the committee by those who came before it with their testimony.
We had statements from leaders in industry that the tendency in industry today is not toward the retirement of people at 65. The value of the services of persons in the age group 65-69, was emphasized by leaders in industry, because in that group there is a stability and reliability among those physically able to continue in employment which industry is today increasingly recognizing.


The type of scheme which compels retirement from industrial employment of employees at the age of 65, we were given to understand, is not so likely to be encouraged in future, because of the usefulness in industry of citizens of that group.
If those views commended themselves to the committee a year ago, surely, Mr. Speaker, they are even more entitled today to recognition because of the limitations on our labour force and the tremendous demands that are to be put upon that labour force to meet the growing needs of our defence program. Therefore one must express regret and disappointment that the amount of supplemental income allowed is not adequate realistically to meet or to attain the objectives which are admitted as worthy of general support.
What about persons who, by their thrift, have made provision at this age for their later years? What about the type of industrial pension which takes effect at this age? It means that the person in industry who ha? submitted to deductions from his pay envelopes over the years to provide his contributory portion toward his industrial retirement pension will have deducted from his claim to benefits under this act the full amount of his industrial pension. Obviously that is a weakness in the bill, and it points to the inadequacy of this provision for the earning of supplemental income.
One other matter that has been touched upon, and does relate to the means test, is recovery from the estates of recipients. I am happy indeed that the minister has seen fit, even at this eleventh hour, to withdraw the requirement that the provinces, when entering into agreements with the dominion, should be compelled to recover from the estates of recipients and share the recovery equally with the dominion. I am glad that has been withdrawn. But bear in mind that what has been withdrawn is the compulsory feature. The minister made it clear this morning that if any province chooses to recover from the estates of recipients, then the dominion will share equally in the proceeds. I hope no encouragement will be offered to any province to follow a scheme of that kind; because the committee had an abundance of evidence to show that the recoveries from estates of recipients of old age pensions were negligible. The deputy minister was probably the leading witness on the point, and the expression he used, in reply to a question was, as I recall it, "virtually negligible".
We will wish to know why those in receipt of war veterans allowances under this bill

are singled out for special mention; but that is a matter for the committee stage.
Finally, the whole question of financing a scheme of this kind should have received, in my view, much more ample treatment than it received in the scant reference to it by the minister this morning. We have been kept in the dark until this morning as to the method by which the cost of this scheme is to be met.
When the Prime Minister made his announcement on the subject on June 4, he said, as reported at page 3665 of Hansard:
Moreover, as hon. members know, the universal pensions are to have right from the start a contributory basis.
Now, the Prime Minister did not make any reference at that time to the method by which the cost of the old age assistance for the group 65 to 69 is to be met-not a word on the subject. If parliament is to see this problem whole, as it should; if this is one whole problem of old age security, not two problems divided into watertight compartments at the age of seventy, then what we should have before the house now is a comprehensive outline and detail of the method by which the whole cost of both branches of the scheme is to be financed.
We have not been given that. We are told to wait until next fall before we know anything about the method by which the cost of the universal pension at the age of 70 is to be met. We are told simply that it is to be a "contributory" pension. Well, that word could cover a multitude of different methods of meeting the cost. But we are left completely in the dark at this stage as to what the method will be. We have waited until this morning to know how the cost of the benefits for the group 65 to 69 is to be met. Following the minister in his brief reference to this subject this morning as closely as one could, one infers that the cost is simply to be met out of the consolidated revenue fund; there is no special provision as to the source of the funds to meet this scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No interference with the contributory fund to be established in respect of the scheme with the contributory principle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the house ought to be in the position to make that judgment itself. This morning the minister has made the briefest kind of statement on the subject. And, Mr. Speaker, I attach such importance to this whole question of old age security and to the importance of seeing the problem whole, and the importance therefore of seeing how from the beginning we are to
Old Age Assistance Act provide the cost for the whole scheme, that I must express my strong regret that our information on this vital aspect of the problem is so very meagre today.
When people go to purchase even those things they want most, they do not do it on the basis of being told: Well, come back in three or four months and we will tell you how it is to be paid for. People usually like to know how they are going to pay for the things they buy before they make the purchase. I cannot see why in this respect the people of Canada should be placed in any different position from the average man or housewife who goes to the store to make a purchase. He or she wants to know what the cost is. We have been given an indication as to the cost; and he or she wants to know at the same time how that price is to be paid. We are not told that. I think the house wants to know more about that subject and should have been given more information.
That brings me back to the point I started to make when speaking on Thursday, that we should have approached this problem with both measures for treatment of the problem before us. I have reviewed what seemed to me to be many of the important features of this bill, and have drawn attention to them in the hope that there will be a realistic appreciation, not only of those important points but also of the limitations of the bill. I urge that the house do not content itself with the enactment of these measures today and then sit back and think that its task is completed. I urge the house to regard the step that it is taking today, important and far-reaching as it is, as only a tentative step. It should be a recognition of our desire, in the light of the experience we will quickly gather through the administration of this scheme, to keep closely in touch with the problem, studying it from month to month and seeking ever to eliminate the difficulties and problems that will inevitably arise in the administration of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In speaking to the second reading of this bill I wish to say, first of all, that I regard it as a most welcome piece of legislation. Indeed this is an historic occasion. We are providing for the first time in Canadian history for the payment of old age pensons, at least to some Canadians below the age of 70 years. I shall have something to say as to the progress yet to be made, and I shall endeavour to indicate some of the points that I feel must be pursued. In doing so I hope that I shall not be accused of detracting in any way from the importance and the significance of the measure now before us. Indeed,

Old Age Assistance Act a little later in my remarks I intend to draw attention to some of the specific features of the bill now before us which I regard as exceptionally good.
However, like the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Fleming), I feel that this is not the time for members of parliament to sit back and feel satisfied that the job is done. As I have indicated already, we are taking an important step; we are inaugurating pensions for some of our fellow citizens between the ages of 65 and 69 years. But this is only the opening chapter and not the end of the story. I urge most strongly upon all hon. members that they continue to give thought to this important problem. Eight now while we are taking this important step is indeed the time to think of the other steps that have yet to be taken before we shall have completely rounded out an adequate program of old age security as part of an adequate program of over-all social security.
I should like for just a minute to refer to something we were discussing two or three days ago under another item. I would emphasize the fact that once we have taken the important steps in the field of old age security that we are taking this year, the gap with respect to health insurance will be all the more apparent. I feel that we must give close and serious attention to that problem. References are being made to the good work that was done by last year's committee on old age security, and I was glad to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) state the other night that the government is giving consideration to the setting up of a similar committee in 1952 to go into the whole question of health insurance. That is an important part of any over-all social security program. Indeed we owe it, not only to all Canadians but to our elder citizens about whom we are thinking today, to see to it that a program of health insurance is included in our social security arrangements.
With regard to the work yet to be done in the field of old age pensions, and in particular with regard to those in the age group from 65 to 69, I submit, as I have indicated already, that there are two improvements that we shall have to make. We shall have to start agitating for those improvements just as soon as this present job is done. On the one hand, we shall have to do something about the amount of the pension, and on the other hand, we shall have to abolish the means test from the pension for those from 65 to 69.
A $40 pension as compared with the $20 which was the old age pension as recently as 1942 and the early part of 1943 sounds like


progress. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out this morning, that means that in less than a decade we have actually doubled the amount of the old age pension in terms of dollars. But in view of the continuing rise in the cost of living we must face the fact that that $40 today is not worth what it was back in the days when the old age pension legislation first came into being. As I pointed out the other day, in terms of the 1935-39 purchasing power of the dollar, $40 today is worth only $21.97. In other words, we are starting off the group from 65 to 69 years at just about the same point as that at which we started those of 70 years and over back in 1927.
I feel I should repeat the point I made the other day, to the effect that the increase in the cost of living from last June to the present time has decreased the value of $40, even in terms of its purchasing power last June, to a figure of a little over $36. In other words, if we were fully to implement the recommendations of last year's committee for a pension of $40 a month for those between the ages of 65 and 69 years in terms of the purchasing power of $40 when that recommendation was made, the amount proposed by the minister in the bill today should be not less than $44. I contend that in view of continuing increases in the cost of living, and in view of our increased productivity across the years, the day has come when we shall have to think in terms of old age retirement pensions at a figure of at least $60 a month for all our senior citizens.
I expect that some hon. members will suggest that that is a large figure; that the cost will be great. It may be asked whether I have given any thought to that aspect of the matter. First of all, may I say that I have in my hand Hansard for February 28, 1938, the daily edition. This well-worn booklet is over thirteen years old. On that day Mr. A. A. Heaps, who was then the member for Winnipeg North, seconded by the then and present member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), moved a resolution with respect to old age pensions. There have been a good many resolutions and amendments respecting old age pensions moved from this corner of the house across the years, relating from time to time to different aspects of the old age pension problem. On that occasion, and that is one reason why I produce this copy of Hansard, the particular point covered by the motion moved by Mr. Heaps and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East was that the eligible age for old age pensions should be lowered. The motion dealt with that point only. It was a very interesting debate, in which some who are still members of the

house took part, and in which a part was taken by some who are no longer here. The minister involved was the then minister of finance, Mr. Dunning. Mr. Dunning pointed out at page 892 of the copy of Hansard I have in my hand that the cost of old age pensions to the federal government in the year 1938 had already risen to the staggering figure of $30 million. He suggested that one had to approach the motion debated on that day with extreme caution, because if it were carried, if indeed the age limit were brought down to 65 and a pension of $20 a month paid at that time, it would have increased the federal government's expenditure on old age pensions to the impossible sum of $48 million a year.
I have no doubt that in those days members who talked in terms of such figures thought they were extremely large, but today even under the present act the federal government is spending more than $100 million a year on old age pensions, and the total commitments involved in the program of old age legislation for this year will be something over $350 million a year. In other words, the times do move on, and figures that seem large on one occasion become quite small in later years. Incidentally Mr. Dunning's final words, in speaking with caution, if I may put it that way, on Mr. Heaps' motion were:
I believe we would be hindering rather than helping the ultimate solution by plunging in the direction the hon. member for Winnipeg North desires us to plunge.
That was the attitude of the Liberal minister of finance in 1938, that to propose to lower the old age pension age to 65 was a plunge that could not be taken. I am glad that we now have in the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) a man who is prepared to take that plunge and to bring in a bill lowering the age to 65.


Mr. Maclnnis:: But is it a plunge?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Vancouver East suggests that it is not much of a plunge. It is in fact the implementation of a basic principle to which the Canadian people have felt for a long time we should be giving support.
May I also point out with respect to the matter of cost that if parliament were to go the whole way with the suggestion I make, namely, that we should pay a pension of $60 a month and that we should remove the means test at age 65-


Mr. Stick:: Make it $100.


An hon. Member:: Make it $1,000.
Old Age Assistance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. The problem is more serious than it appears to some hon. members from the interjections that are being made.


Angus MacInnis: He would not be so flippant if he had to live on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If these changes were made,
I will indicate what the result would be. We would find that the total number of Canadians 65 years of age and over would amount to about seven per cent of the total population of the country. If we paid all of them a pension of $60 a month, or $720 a year, we would be diverting to them something in the order of 3j per cent of our gross national product, or 3J per cent of our current production. I suggest that is the basis upon which we should view this matter. I suggest it is not unfair to ask that seven per cent of our population, our older people who have contributed to the building up of the country, who have produced great wealth throughout their working years, should be entitled to 3J per cent of the wealth that the country is able to produce, and able to do so very largely because of the contribution that they have made throughout the years.
In this connection I noted on Thursday that the Minister of National Health and Welfare quite properly said that attention was being paid to the recommendations of last year's committee not only within Canada but in other countries. He referred in particular to the fact that in the United States some real note was being taken of the studies and conclusions that our committee reached. I have in my hand a copy of a document entitled Business Conditions, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. This issue is in fact devoted wholly to the question of old age pensions. There are a number of interesting articles in it, and although there is no direct reference by name to Canada or to our old age security committee, it is pretty obvious to those of us who were members of the committee that the people who wrote this document had studied the work done by our committee. I find on page 10 an article entitled "Economics of Old Age Pensions", containing two or three interesting comments, one or two of which I should like to read. The first is:
Regardless of whether the dollar cost of pensions is measured in terms of the annual payment liability, the expense of funding past and current service credits, or the amount necessary to provide an individual annuity at retirement, the real cost of providing pensions in terms of goods and services will be borne at the time the pensions are paid.
That is the basic principle with respect to old age security that we in this corner of the house have been enunciating during the
4560	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act years that our movement has been represented here. The real cost of providing pensions in terms of goods and services will be borne at the time that the pensions are paid. What I like most of all about the over-all program that is being introduced at this time is that it is based on the pay as we go principle, that it is based on a recognition of the fact that old age pensions and other forms of security are paid not out of some fund that is set apart somewhere, but out of the current production of a country such as ours.
On that basis I suggest that one should look again at the percentages I gave a moment ago. I repeat that it is not unfair to suggest that seven per cent of our population, our older people who have taken their turn at the work of the nation, should enjoy in their retirement some 3 j per cent of the wealth that the country is producing. This same article, having emphasized the point that the real cost of providing pensions is borne at the time the pensions are paid, goes on to state the truth that if you pay larger pensions they have to come out of the current production and therefore that has an effect on the standard of living of the entire country. The article then goes on to say:
For this reason, it is important that as many older people as possible be retained in productive jobs past the age of 65, provided they do not displace younger and more efficient workers. It is estimated that there are about three million persons 65 years and older in the labour force at the present time-
The reference is to the United States.
-and that their contribution to output during 1949 amounted to about $11 billion. To the extent that these older people can be kept employed, the real costs of old age security will be lessened, and the general standard of living will be higher.
The word "real" in that quotation is italicized. I submit that if that basic principle is to be accepted-and I believe it is sound- we have to go a great deal further in the direction of encouraging people from 65 to 69 to earn supplementary income than is provided for in even the relaxed form of means test in the bill now before us. In fact I have already made it clear that I think we have to go the whole way and remove the means test at 65. I want to repeat that this is not to be interpreted as detracting one iota from my statement of how welcome this measure is and how pleased I am that we are getting started with a pension payable at 65; but I submit I am demonstrating this morning that when some of us ask for the complete removal of the means test at 65 we are not just asking for something out of thin air, but are stating fundamental economic principles that are extremely important to the kind of economy in which we are living today.


So I leave that phase of it for the moment. I have tried, as I say, to chart the future course we must follow. It is good that we are taking this step, but we still have a long way to go. In the meantime, with regard to old age pensions themselves, two things yet must be done. We must get the amount of the pension increased, and I submit that it should now be $60 a month; and we should get the means test off at age 65.
In connection with that figure of $60 a month, I remind the house that in the early part of 1949 there was tabled in this house from this group a petition containing more than a quarter of a million signatures, asking for a pension of $50 a month at 65 without a means test. Incidentally the report of the clerk of petitions was that that petition was in order. At the time it was regarded by some hon. members as asking a little too much. In the interval, however, the rise in the cost of living has made it clear that there was one thing wrong with that petition; the amount asked for should have been higher. And it is clearer than ever to me, particularly because of the studies we undertook in last year's committee, that the means test should come off at 65.
In his remarks this morning the minister said the view of the committee was that the principle of universality should not be applied to the group 65 to 69. I submit that is not quite what the committee said. These were its words:
There is an advantage in universality when the large majority of the age group concerned is retired. That advantage does not obtain to the same extent when the majority of the age group concerned is still active and self-supporting.
That is quite a different thing from saying the committee took the view that the principle of universality should not be applied in this group. Obviously the sentences I have read were in the nature of a compromise leading up to the two-point program recommended in paragraph 51 of our conclusions, which the minister put on record a while ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You will find that I quoted them exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am pointing out that the minister placed his own interpretation on what the committee recommended, and if later he can show me where the committee used the words he used, I will accept it; but I am pretty familiar with this report, and I know he did not quote directly from it at that point.
I said earlier I would say something about the good points in the bill now before us. One of the points I like best of all is the decision to get away, as far as it is possible for the federal government to do

so, from recovery from the estates of pensioners. From my study of the bill and comparing it with the Old Age Pensions Act now in effect with respect to those 70 and over, I take it the change that has been made is that under the old act the provinces were required by the federal government to undertake to make recoveries under certain conditions. Under this bill there is no federal requirement that the provinces make recoveries, as was formerly the case. All we now have is the provision that if the provinces do make recoveries they must share them with the federal government on a fifty-fifty basis. In a way I am sorry that even that reference is there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't say that. You know the reason for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is in that reference a suggestion to the provinces that they may do it if they wish, but against that I will accept the statement made by the minister this morning which certainly was an encouragement to the provinces not to take advantage of that provision. I will go the whole way and say this government deserves credit for taking the position that as far as it is concerned it does not want any recoveries out of estates from here on.


Mr. Lesage:: How could we prevent the provinces from recovering their share if they wished to do so?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We cannot prevent them, but I hope we will not encourage them in any way.


Jean Lesage: We could not prevent it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have already said the minister took that position this morning.


Jean Lesage: How about cases of fraud?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Cases of fraud surely could be handled in the courts in the ordinary way. There is no argument on the point; I have already said that as far as this legislation is concerned this government seems to have gone as far as it can, and I hope the provinces will follow suit and put an end to this business of making recoveries from the estates of pensioners.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have reason to believe they will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a most welcome
statement.
A second feature I like about the bill is that I believe it has made a little clearer than was the case in previous legislation the right of pensioners to move about in various parts of Canada. We have moved into that right gradually under the old legislation. The new bill seems to make it pretty clear that
Old Age Assistance Act the federal government wants these pensions to be considered as pensions to Canadians, not as pensions to the residents of particular provinces. I hope the regulations and arrangements to be made will carry out that spirit and facilitate the right of Canadians, whether on the 65 to 69 pension or on the pension paid to those 70 and over without a means test, to move about the country quite freely, not only without loss of their pensions, but with a minimum of red tape.
I noted the minister's reference to the increased ceiling on income, and in particular his statement that it is optional with the provinces whether or not they accept the maximum ceiling proposed in the .legislation.
I have carefully compared the wording of this bill with the wording of the present act, and I find the wording on this point exactly the same-right to the commas and periods, if you please. Under the present act no province has accepted or asked for maximum ceilings lower than the figures there set out. That being the case I earnestly hope that under the new bill no province will ask for an agreement to be signed on the basis of ceilings lower than the maximum figures established in the act. I think it would be most unfortunate if we had any lack of uniformity on that point as between one province and another.
But with regard to the increase in allowable income, naturally I welcome such increase as has been afforded, namely $120 a year, or $10 a month, across the board. I have looked through the act, and that is the story for every category; whatever the maximum ceiling was before, it has been increased by $10 a month. I have already indicated, and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has done so as well, that despite the minister's statement that in his view the bill fully implements the recommendations of the committee, I do not believe that allowing a total of $20 a month of other income really carries out the recommendation that we should recognize to a greater extent than at present the desirability of encouraging recipients to earn supplemental income, as was recommended by the committee. I refer again to my quotations from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. I suggest that to tell people they can earn other income of $20 a month without suffering a reduction in their pension really is not very much encouragement for them to go out and work and earn other income, to say nothing of the loss to our total economy from the lack of such encouragement.
I do feel, therefore, that the means test should be taken off altogether with regard to those 65 to 69. If this parliament has not yet reached that stage, at least this figure
4562	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act should have been raised to a higher amount than is proposed in the bill. In fact, I had hoped that some regard might be paid to the income tax exemption levels. Surely those figures indicate the minimum amounts upon which people can be expected to live. So far as the old age pensioners in this bracket are concerned, they are being asked to live on much lower maximum amounts.
Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, there is one matter to which I feel I must register strong objection. The present Old Age Pensions Act has been on the statute book for more than twenty-four years. We have had that many years' experience in this field. During the whole of those twenty-four years there have been only two years, namely from 1949 to the present time, when the allowable income was the same for a married couple as it was for a single person. I regret that that idea is being carried forward in this bill. This bill provides that $20 per month is to be the other income allowed to a single person, and the same amount is to be allowed a married couple.
In the original act which became effective in 1927, the allowable income was $125 per year for a single person and $250 for a married couple. In other words, it was approximately $10 per month for a single person and $20 per month for a married couple. It stayed that way until 1943. In that year, by virtue of an accident, the amount of other income was reduced to $65 per year for a single person and $130 per year for a married couple. The effect of that accident was such that there were many complaints about it. It was not many months until Mr. Ilsley, who was then the minister of finance, corrected the situation by order in council, and restored the amount of other income to the figures provided in the original act.
The act stayed that way until 1947, when the pension was increased to $30 per month for a single person and $60 per month for married couples, and the ceilings on total income were raised to $600 per year for single persons and $1,080 for married couples. This meant that a single person was allowed $20 per month of other income, while married couples were allowed $30 per month. I respect the thinking behind that decision. I believe it was sound that a married couple should have more than a single person, and I think there was something to be said for the married couple's greater amount being not twice as much but in some such proportion as was worked out. I point out that the decision made in 1947 was deliberate. It was a decision of the people who drafted the act brought in at that time, and it was a decision consciously made.


But in 1949, when the amount of pension was increased to $40, by a sheer accident, indeed by virtue of the fact that no change was made in the ceilings on total income, we were left with the situation that a single person was allowed only $10 per month other income and a married couple were allowed the same figure. The ceilings of $600 per year and $1,080 per year were left, and we got that accidental result of the same amount for a single person as for a married couple. I recognize the plausibility in what the government is now doing. They are applying the $10 per month or $120 per year increase across the board. What they are doing though, Mr. Speaker, is adding the same amount across the board to a basis which is already wrong, a basis which was not arrived at by any conscious thought on the part of the people who drafted the legislation, but which was arrived at accidentally. I submit it is most unfortunate that this accident of 1949 is being carried forward at this time when we are setting up this new piece of legislation. I repeat that we have had old age pension experience in this country for twenty-four years, and for twenty-two out of the twenty-four years a greater amount of other income was allowed to married couples than to a single person. As this error for only two years out of twenty-four was brought about by accident, I submit most strongly there is no justification for carrying forward that wrong.
There are other matters that I should like to have spoken about, but I shall not carry the debate past one o'clock. I can deal with the other matters I want to speak about when we get into committee. As the minister will be aware from the way I have just spoken, when we reach the section dealing with other income I shall strongly urge him to consider an amendment. It is extremely unfortunate at this time to carry forward that mistake by making the other income allowed a married couple the same as that allowed a single person and so small an amount at that. I hope a change can be made in that at this time.
I conclude by saying, as I said at the beginning, that I welcome this legislation. I am glad to be here when we are starting old age pensions at the age of 65, but we have still a long way to go to achieve complete old age security, including justice and fair play to our elder citizens. I, for one, will carry on the fight for improvement in the position of our older people.
At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock.


Solon Earl Low: I am
speaking now to Bill No. 395, which occupied the attention of the house for the whole of this morning's sitting. I do not intend to speak very long, and I am sure that when I sit down you will agree, sir, that I have kept my intention. I do not think it is necessary for me to speak very long about this bill. In my judgment it represents efforts-I suppose one could correctly say the best efforts-of the combined representatives of the provinces and the dominion to find and to draft a suitable and workable program of assistance for Canadians between the ages of 65 and 69 years who need help to live in some comfort. Consequently I do not feel that I should spend a lot of time criticizing its various provisions.
The representatives of the ten provinces and the dominion spent considerable time in reaching the measure of agreement represented in this bill. When we realize that no province has asked for more than the bill provides at this time, it seems to me that the provinces know they will have plenty of trouble to find the money to pay their fifty per cent of the $40 a month to those between 65 and 69, and we ought not to be spending too much time criticizing in detail the measure of agreement that has been reached.
It seems to me that we in this house ought to recognize that unless we have done our best either to help the provinces to find the money to do a better job, or to induce the federal government to do the job by itself, then we should readily agree with the forward step that has been taken, as represented by this bill, and have it enacted' into law as quickly as we possibly can.
So far as my province is concerned, it is going to find plenty of difficulty in financing its share of old age assistance.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Solon Earl Low: Of course hon. members across the way seem to have the idea that Alberta is just rolling in new vast wealth from oil. Well, that is not so. When a person stops to realize the comparatively small amount of money that today is being derived from oil-


Mr. Croll:: They are swimming in oil.


Solon Earl Low: No, that is not so. You see, hon. members across the way do not read very much. They do not go very much into the details of figures.


Mr. Blackmore:: No, and they have not been willing to listen.
Old Age Assistance Act


Solon Earl Low: That is right. I suggest that they take the last budget of the province of Alberta and just see for themselves what a small percentage of the total income is derived from oil, and then they will agree with what I am saying. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Alberta, fortunate as it is-and I am agreeing that it is fortunate at the present time-will find it very difficult to finance its share of the old age assistance program. The people of Alberta do not jump into and assume a load of fixed charges that will go on indefinitely without giving the matter careful thought. A windfall for a few years is a windfall, and nobody can bank on continuing a service on that sort of financing; so we are trying to be realistic about this matter. We are looking ahead a few years to the point where we may not have the income from oil.


Angus MacInnis: It is a wise precaution.


Solon Earl Low: It is a wise precaution, and I think everybody realizes that that is so.
The new program that has been embodied in this bill will cost Alberta more-that, together with what it may bear under the universal pension program-considerably more than the present program is costing. That may not be true of every province, but I am satisfied it is true with respect to my province. At the present time Alberta is paying a supplementary allowance of $10 a month without a means test. Let that be borne in mind. And when this government takes on the universal pensions for all over 70, as I understand it is proposed to do after January 1 next, what will Alberta do about that supplementary pension that she has been paying?-because Albertans have for quite a number of years felt that nothing less than $50 a month was adequate to provide a decent standard of living or of assistance, if you want to put it on that basis, for old age pensioners in this day and under the circumstances that do obtain.
Between this date and January 1 next Alberta must decide whether she will be able to continue the supplementary pension. If she does, it will cost nearly $3 million a year for those over 70 alone. Having paid these supplementary payments for quite a number of years, I am asking hon. members to weigh just how far the provincial government will be able, at one stroke, let us say, to discontinue them.


Mr. Ferrie:: Let us go home and talk to them about it.

Old Age Assistance Act


Solon Earl Low: Yes, but I was hoping that perhaps the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) would be willing to listen a little bit to common sense.


Angus MacInnis: Too much to expect.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps that is optimistic. What about those between 65 and 69 who are covered by this bill? In what position is the Alberta government going to be placed, let us say, when the bill becomes operative? How many charges of discrimination will be levelled at the government if they do not pay a supplementary allowance of $10 a month to those pensioners?
You see, there are problems involved. I cite these things, not for the purpose of asking members of the house for sympathy-not at all-but to show you that when we take these steps we should take them carefully, and not before we know how we are going to get along. That is why I cannot find it in my heart to be a carping critic of the bill and its provisions.
In addition to what I have already said, the province of Alberta at present extends medical, dental, optical and hospital services to pensioners who qualify, over 70 years of age, at a cost of $3.50 per month each. What about that program? Where will the province find the money, let us say, to extend those same services to pensioners from 65 to 69, and thus escape the charge of discrimination? That is a problem they have to face-and it is a real one.
Moreover, let us not forget that there is no distinction made in this bill between white people and our Indian brethren. They are all placed on a level. The fact that the Indian population is brought into the assistance scheme places another burden on the provinces. So I am simply saying this, that somebody has to recognize the burden that the provinces are to be asked to carry. Instead of standing up here and whining about the whole thing being inadequate, let us just take a look at it from the provincial point of view. Let us remember that when the provinces feel that they are ready to ask for more generous allowances for these people, they will likely come along and ask; and at that time we should support them to the fullest of our ability.
Another observation I should make about the bill is that it is doubtless a monument to several things. In the first place I think it is a monument-and I say this first because it comes to my mind first, not because I believe it is the one that requires priority-it is a monument to the persistence of those people in the house, no matter on what side they
[Mr. Ferried

may have sat, who, over the years, have demanded a better deal for our aged citizens.
I am satisfied that the government, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will admit that the members of the opposition in all parties-a good many of them at least-have been as tenacious as the proverbial pup that got hold of a root. And it has been pulling on it ever since. I say that the bill is a monument to their tenacity and determination of purpose. At the same time we will have to say that it stands as a monument to the recognition by the government of the determination of the people of Canada to get better conditions for the aged people. So we give them credit for recognizing that fact and yielding to pressure.
For us to stand here and to debate where credit should go would be foolish. I do not think it should matter to us who gets the credit as long as the aged people get the cash. That is the position I take.
As to the adequacy of the assistance, as it is called in the bill: I think that neither the amount of the assistance nor the amount of the supplementary earnings allowable under the bill will be considered sufficient by any thinking person to provide a good standard of living for these aged people. I certainly do not think it is adequate in either case. The purchasing value of the maximum income allowed under the bill is, under present circumstances, pitifully small. We wish it could be greater; but when one considers along with that the burden of taxation that is now borne by the Canadian people, and what would have to be borne if the assistance were to be granted at a higher level, one wonders with a great deal of sobriety just how much further we can go with this and other kinds of social security measures so long as the government has to depend entirely upon taxation to get money.
Some new approach will simply have to be found if we are ever to have in Canada an adequate old age or, for that matter, any other kind of security program. I speak of another approach. I know something about another approach; but I only mention it briefly by way of indicating that there is some way by which such things can be done.
I happen to be a member of a group of people who have succeeded in establishing a social assistance program based upon actual need, and who did succeed during the hungry thirties in taking practically every single one of its members off government assistance an'fi relief. It did that without taxing anybody a five cent piece. Ways were found by that

group of people of providing those needs without drawing from or diminishing in any way the national commercial stockpile. A fine type of co-operative effort and enterprise added a supplementary stockpile, if you wish to call it that, to the nation's commercial stockpile. And it was and at present is out of this supplement, or increased production, that material assistance is drawn by the disabled and the unfortunate. No financial currency is involved.
I am suggesting simply that there is a way of doing it without taxing the daylights out of the people. If it is possible in the instance I have suggested, in broad outline, to find a way of inducing people to put forth an effort to build a stockpile of goods and services which can be distributed among the unemployed, the disabled and the unemployable, I suggest that it can be done on a national scale, if we bend our efforts in that direction.
I say that until such time as we can induce the all-out productive effort that will provide supplementary stockpiles that are not involved in financial and commercial intricacies, I am satisfied that we are not going to be able to go too fast in the expansion of social security programs of any kind.
There is a natural resistance on the part of people everywhere to excessive taxation, and we must recognize that fact. We have to pay some attention to the people who, in the long run, pay the taxes. We have to find means of providing an adequate standard of living for our people-our aged, our unemployables and, particularly, our disabled -that does not involve the present intricacies of taxation or borrowing.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. I shall wish to make some comments on certain sections as they come along, but I want to conclude by saying that we in the Social Credit group look forward to the time when old age pensions and old age assistance of the kind that we are providing in this bill will become one of the mechanisms by which additions to the money supply of Canada will be made as and when those additions are required, without adding interest or tax burdens upon the people. That sort of mechanism will simply have to be used if we are ever to preserve any measure of personal independence among the Canadian people and get rid of the injustices and oppressions that our present financial policy visits upon the people.
Until we reach that happy stage in our progress toward full social security for all, with a maximum of personal freedom, it seems to me that no adequate pension can ever be paid. So let us work forward to the
Old Age Assistance Act day when some new technique such as the one I have discussed will be made possible of application in this dominion, and then we will not have to worry too much about means tests or anything of the sort we have in this bill. We support the principle of this bill.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take part in this debate because I am anxious to see the principle of the bill approved. However, I believe it my duty to say a few words at this time. I think hon. members of the house who have praised the work of the parliamentary committee on old age security should know how much the members of that committee appreciate their favourable comment. If the committee attained its goal and was able to present a report without a dissenting voice it was due to the hard work and true liberal co-operation that was given by members of all parties who composed the committee.


Gordon Graydon: Use the word "generous."


Jean Lesage: To my mind, generous and liberal are synonymous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We behaved like a cooperative commonwealth.


Jean Lesage: On behalf of the committee I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Finance, the Department of Labour and the Department of Justice, who helped us so much in our work and who spared nothing in order to be at our disposal at all times. In particular, the staff of the research branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare showed an interest and devotion which went far beyond what their duty required of them.
I know it is always dangerous to single out any one in particular, but I believe in the present case no one will be offended if I personally, and in the name of the members of the committee, pay a special tribute to a man who for months worked for the committee day and night. His talent, his knowledge, his clear mind, his affable manner did more to bring about a happy solution of the problems we were discussing than anything else. I think this man deserves the gratitude of parliament and indeed of the Canadian people. I refer to the deputy minister of welfare, Dr. Davidson.
I think I can say in the name of the members of the committee that we are grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), and to the government for having accepted the conclusions of the committee as the basis for the proposed legislation on old age security. We appreciate

Old Age Assistance Act also that the provinces responded to the appeal contained in the last words of the report, and I quote:
The committee trusts that the views herein set forth will appeal to the provincial governments as worthy of favourable consideration.
The provincial governments have answered that appeal and with the magnificent cooperation of the eleven governments of this country it is now possible to have before us legislation implementing the conclusions of the committee.
I listened with great interest on Thursday and again this morning to the debate that took place on the principle of the bill, or as a matter of fact on the whole question of old age security. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the committee in its deliberations was confronted with three main aspects of an old age security program. The first was the means test; the second was the question of age; and the third was the amount of the benefit or pension. One question which was asked of practically all the witnesses was which one of the following courses they would give priority to: abolishing the means test, lowering the age, or increasing the amount of pension. The practically unanimous answer was that first priority should be given to doing away with the means test for people 70 years of age and over; that second priority should be given to lowering the age to 65 years; and that third priority should be given to considering an increase in the amount of the pension. The conclusions of the committee were reached accordingly.
Let us not forget that the program which the government has accepted follows the conclusions of the committee in its main lines. As the minister said this morning, there is only one slight difference in connection with residence and this was for obvious reasons which will be explained by the minister. The conclusions of the committee were based on briefs presented by organizations and testimony given by representatives of organizations representing practically all classes in Canada. Let us not forget that.
The program which the government is ready to implement will be in accord with our conclusions. The means test is to be done away with as far as people of 70 years and over are concerned. The age has been reduced to 65 following an understanding reached with the provinces at the end of May. It has been said, and I expected that it would be, by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the eligibility test was too much like the means test, and that the restrictions on other income were not lifted

sufficiently. May I borrow the words of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and say that we are dealing with a matter in connection with which we must have the concurrence of the provinces.
During the meetings of the federal-provincial conference, in which I had the honour to participate, most of the provinces were reluctant to see the income ceiling increased from the figures that we now have for people 70 and over. Only one or two provinces asked for an increase in the income ceiling. Therefore the government felt that the increase should be a reasonable one but that at the same time the provinces should be free to accept it or to accept any amount below the maximum ceiling. Therefore the provinces which have asked for an increased ceiling may use it if they want to and the ones which object to it will do whatever they like.
We have to respect the autonomy of the provinces. Even if I am a Liberal from Quebec, no one will be surprised if I say that, and this is one instance in which we have to work hand in hand with the provinces. The provinces expressed their fear of the financial and economic impact of too great a liberalization of the eligibility test for people between 65 and 69. This test may have different effects as applied to people between 65 and 69 from what it has had when applied to those 70 and over. It is not the same age group. The economic and financial effects may very well be different, and the provinces expressed the hope that the federal government would wait for a while before going too far with any increase of the income ceiling. They have expressed the hope that they might be allowed to observe for a year or two how this test will work out when applied to people from 65 to 69.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said this morning that inasmuch as everyone has condemned the means test as applied to people 70 and over it would appear contradictory to recommend an eligibility test for people from 65 to 69. In other words, the opinion has been expressed that if the means test has been considered to punish thrift and prevent employment of people 70 and over, a somewhat similar eligibility test would have the same effect if applied to people from 65 to 70. To my mind that is far from being a foregone conclusion. The special committee expressed an opinion in that regard, and I should like to refer to paragraph 47 of the conclusions, which reads:
It may be doubted whether, in terms of priorities, the diversion of such a large extra amount of the national income to this particular group can be

justified, particularly when such a large proportion of the people in this age group are still actively engaged in productive employment and self-supporting. There is an advantage in universality when the large majority of the age group concerned is retired. That advantage does not obtain to the same extent when the majority of the age group concerned is still active and self-supporting.
It has been said that the application of a test to people from 65 to 69 would prevent the employment of people in that age group. On the contrary, it seems to me that the implementation of a universal system of pensions from age 65 could have the psychological effect at this time of leading the mass of the people to believe that no one should work after 65, and that the recognized universal retirement age should be 65. Nothing could be worse for the Canadian economy at this time and also for the citizens themselves from 65 to 69. Let us not forget that; and I quote from page 99 of the report:
Due to improved health services and the consequent increase in the longevity of our population, along with other factors, our aged population is growing from year to year. In 1931 the average life expectancy for new-born males was 60 years and for females 62 -1 years.
In 1947 the life expectancy of new-born males and females had risen to 65-18 years and 69-05 years respectively. I am convinced that the 1951 figures would be still higher. We have in 1951 approximately 1,100,000 people 65 and over. The report continues:
This trend towards an ageing population may reasonably be expected to continue through the decades ahead.
In Canada during a period such as the one we are in at the present time, a period of practically full employment, there are 5,300,000 people gainfully employed, which is a proportion of 4-8 gainfully employed people for each person 65 and over. If we accepted the age of 65 as the universal retirement age it would mean that five persons gainfully employed in Canada would have to contribute for the living of the sixth. In other words, if we had, as we have heard it advocated many times, a universal pension of $50 a month at age 65, which is even below what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) requested this morning, it would mean that each person gainfully employed in Canada at this time would have to contribute an average of $10 a month out of the national income for the purpose of old age security alone. I am not convinced that the people of Canada will be ready to go so far at this time. I should like to refer to page 101 of the report where it reads:
As large numbers of persons reach what may, under present circumstances, be considered the normal ages of retirement, and as they find themselves in better health, it may be expected that they will show increasing reluctance to accept the
Old Age Assistance Act inevitability of retirement at such ages. It is in the interests of the individuals themselves and of the country as a whole that we should re-think our attitude towards continued gainful occupation of these older age groups. The committee believes that increasing emphasis should be placed on efforts to remove from people's minds the idea that there is any set or accepted age for retirement. Each individual in the nation's population should be encouraged to continue as long as possible in gainful employment. Not only is this a matter of importance to individuals themselves in terms of their health and mental outlook, but it is of even greater importance to the over-all economy of the country. Surely a country like Canada, with a wealth of natural resources still in large part undeveloped, is justified in having profound faith in its economic future. If we are to develop these resources adequately, we shall need' to retain in active undertakings the largest possible number of our nation's population. The committee believes that, in the years ahead, our economic progress and prosperity will depend in significant measure on the success of efforts made to utilize to the fullest possible advantage the mature skills of these older workers.
It is my personal opinion that if at this time we had a universal pension at 65 it would have the psychological effect of having the mass of the people believe that the accepted retirement age in Canada was 65 years. As far as this is concerned I said in committee and I want to repeat here that personally I deplore the fact that the government itself is not setting a very good example in that regard.
I and the majority of Canadians who think as I do may be wrong, but, if we are, the situation which will be created under this bill can be corrected. If on the other hand the proposal for universal pensions at 65 was Implemented and it turned out that we were right in our apprehensions and those other hon. members who proposed it were wrong there would be no remedy, no way back.
That was the attitude I took in committee, and I believe it was reasonable. Those who held opposite views came to a reasonable compromise. I urge hon. members not to talk so much about things that may be done in future. Let us first try this system instead of making speeches so that two or three years from now one may say, "Oh, well, I was the first to advocate it in the House of Commons." I do not believe we should play politics with this question. This is a good bill; it is something the people of Canada want. I urge this house to approve the terms of the compromise reached in the committee. I am convinced that all hon. members will be only too happy to approve the principle of the bill which is the first step towards placing Canada in the forefront of the world as far as provision for old age security is concerned.


David Arnold Croll: I have just a few words to say on this bill; I will not delay the house. I am in full accord with its principle. To the chairman of the committee,

Old Age Assistance Act who has just taken his seat, I want to indicate how much we of the committee appreciated the work he did. It was not an easy task. We came to the committee with varying views. We argued; we weighed facts; we had some differences; we compromised. We were determined to come to a solution, and we did. I think that joint committee on old age security was parliament at its best.
The importance of this bill does not arise from the amount of money involved but rather from its principle. In one stroke the recommendations of the committee now being implemented have brought about the beginning of a universal pension at 70, the beginning of the end of the means test, and the payment of pensions to a new group from 65 to 69. In my opinion this is a historic measure of social significance. Hearing the speeches made today endorsing the principle of the bill brought to my mind a military principle. In the presence of such distinguished soldiers as I see here I am a little hesitant about expressing it, but perhaps they will forgive me. I believe the first thing one is taught in the army is that when you have attained your immediate objective the next thing you do is consolidate your position to make sure no one takes it away from you. It seems to me we should give a little thought to that principle at this time. How much social security? Well, as much as the people want and are prepared to pay for. Where is the limit? I do not know. I do know we have not reached it yet.
We must recognize that this measure came about as the result of an overwhelming public clamour. They asked us to do away with the means test, and to lower the age limit. The government heard that demand and timed it-timing was important in this case-in such a way that it is now acceptable to all the people of Canada. I make that point not so much for the effect it may have on this and the other bill that will be introduced, but because there is still so much to do. The other day the question of national health insurance arose. There are many champions of national health insurance in this house, men who will be not only persistent but determined to bring it and keep it actively before the house. Unfortunately, the people have not yet clearly made their wishes known. Those same lobbies and interests that were advocating the removal of the means test and lowering of the age limit have not been heard from. I believe the people will make their wishes known on health insurance. They are also prepared to pay for it.
It is very difficult for me to follow this galaxy of speakers, who know the old age pension problem from A to Z and try to find something new to say.


Solon Earl Low: Now you can appreciate the position we are in.


David Arnold Croll: I do. The measure before us providing pensions for people from 65 to 69 I am told will cover one-third of all the invalids and incurables in this country. The significance of that fact must not be lost. There has been a feeling in this house that for too long we have neglected these people. Because they have no great lobby, because in most instances their families look after them in their own way instead of making their plight public, their voices have not been heard. I believe there are approximately 50,000 invalids and incurables in Canada at the present time. One-third of them will be covered when this act becomes effective. Before we talk about improvement in the present measure, before we talk about further progress, should we not spread ourselves a little laterally and make sure that somehow the other 35,000 are included? It seems to me we should reflect well before deciding what our next step will be. I ask this house to give this matter some real consideration. These unfortunate people are not the ones who constantly sit on our doorstep and present their views. In many instances they are in their homes. We know very little about them. Nevertheless, they are a responsibility. We are doing something for them at the present time. We have them provided for from 65 on, and from birth to 16 years. There is an in-between period that ought to be covered. There are not very many of them, but it seems to me that is the next task to which we ought to apply our minds.
My purpose in rising was to say two things to the house. First, to bring to the attention of hon. members the necessity of applying their minds to the 35,000 odd invalids and incurables in this country. Second, to bring to them a realization that we still have some unfinished business in the way of national health insurance to which .we ought now to turn ourselves in order to bring it to the attention of the government and keep it before the government. Though it does not seem to be attainable tomorrow, it seems to me it can easily be realized within a very short time. Once we have achieved those things we will have fully satisfied the task that we presently set before us. Time and again I have heard it said, it is true, that in this country we have the best veterans legislation in the world. With this measure and the measure that will be introduced at the next session, along with health insurance and some of the supplementary measures, we shall be afforded the opportunity of saying

we have the best social security measures in all the world. I hope that in due time this house will make that possible.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: shall be very brief in what I have to say. First of all, I compliment the minister upon the introduction of this measure. I do not think he could more happily celebrate his birthday than by introducing it. I should like to pay tribute to his senior civil servants, and particularly to Dr. George Davidson, a native of British Columbia, who I believe probably has a wider knowledge of social matters than any civil servant employed by any government in the world today.
I want to deal with one aspect of this matter. I have spoken to my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) before this, because I have found his usual inclination is to start moving the goal posts before we have them firmly planted in any particular place. I think that action and reaction are equal and opposite in political affairs as well as in the law of the physicist. As a result of the introduction of this bill, I believe we are going to have a job to sell the idea to the people of Canada. I have in mind particularly the youngster of 21 who starts working and, under this legislation, finds he is going to have to work for forty-four years before he can hope to get any benefit from it. We have to sell to the working force of this country the idea that they are going to have to put up the money for those who are now retired. It will be a tremendous job for us to sell that idea to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Other 21-year-olds will do it when he is 65.


Arthur Laing: I hope we have arrived at the time when we realize that this money does not come off Christmas trees. We get nothing for nothing and precious little for sixpence. We have to find the money for this by way of taxation.
There is another aspect I want to mention, and I can do it very briefly. I hope we do not accept as a full governmental responsibility the supplying of adequate funds for people to retire upon. I suggest that we have long had in this country a number of personal rights. As a nation we have been very zealous and attentive to our political rights. I seem to see now a new concept coming into people's minds. I believe that people are demanding certain economic rights. I would hope that those economic rights are shared by the government or governments of this country, and by the employers. It was particularly gratifying to me to note in the committee's report that there are now no less than 4,125 80709-2901
Old Age Assistance Act employee pension plans in Canada covering approximately 627,000 persons. I have no doubt those plans have been extended in this past year, and I hope that they will be extended in the future so that a measure of responsibility for the employees is impressed upon the employers of this country as well as the governments of this country.
I believe that very few of the democratic countries in the world today would care to see their governments initiate and administer everything. I am quite convinced that in Canada there is the greatest disinclination on the part of the people to have governments initiate and administrate everything. I believe that is reflected in the fact that today Canada has become one of the choicest spots on the face of the earth for investment capital. I believe we should be very careful in the future to see to it that, instead of saying the government should take over the entire scheme, we do everything we possibly can to encourage employers to bear a responsibility which, in these days of the new concept, is very much their responsibility. I want to quote one section from the committee report which I believe is of great importance. It reads:
The committee feels that any plan to be considered should not interfere with employee pension plans, the purchase of governmental or private annuities, or private savings. Any scheme conceived under public auspices should be such as to place a floor under these private or collective provisions for retirement security; this would make possible the development under private initiative of supplemental programs which, taken together with governmental provisions, would result in more adequate retirement security for the largest possible number of Canadians.
I hope that governmental action in the future, by way of taxation and so on, will do nothing to discourage the sharing of the responsibility by industry and government but rather will encourage it.


Angus MacInnis: It
was not my intention to take part in this debate. Earlier in the day I felt that the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had stated my position, and possibly my aspirations, completely enough so that it would not be' necessary for me to speak. However, there have been some other speeches made, in addition to those of the various party spokesmen, and some things have been said which I believe I should attempt to answer. I think it would be rather unfortunate if we were to approach this bill in a spirit of carping criticism, and, I am glad to say, that has not been done. I think it would be equally unfortunate if we were to assert that the bill is a world record breaker of its kind, as there has been a tendency to treat it in the house
4570	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act on several occasions. As a matter of fact this bill by itself is a rather puny effort at social security, and perhaps that is necessarily so because it is legislation that has to be operated in conjunction with the provinces; but taking this bill with the other one dealing with universal pensions, which will be introduced at the next session, we have I believe made a very substantial step in progress towards social security.
It rather pains me to hear young men speak in terms and phrases that we would naturally expect to hear from old men. When I feel depressed, or discouraged with the slow progress we are making in various directions, I sometimes go back to Hansard and look up the speeches of members and senators of other years. I compare what they said in their day with what has happened since their time, and I usually can say to myself: We are making progress after all, although it may be slow.
As I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), who was the chairman of the committee on old age security last year, my mind went back to statements made in the other place in 1926 and 1927 when the first old age pension measure was debated in parliament. Just for the benefit, particularly of my two young friends, both of whom I like very much, I think I shall read some of these statements, and hope after I have finished they will not be so pessimistic as to the future of mankind.
The world is moving, and we have to be very careful to see not that we do not go too fast, but that we do go fast enough. If you look over the world today and take note of those places where there has been revolution, where things are in a chaotic condition, you will find that people have not revolted because their governments moved too fast; they have always revolted because their governments did not move fast enough; and that would apply to us just as much as it applies to them. The lesson is there, and he who runs may read, and if he does not read now he may try to read when he is running much faster than he is running now.
I shall read some short statements that were made by senators, who 1 suppose have since gone to their everlasting reward. On June 8, 1926, at page 160 of Senate Hansard the Hon. C. P. Beaubien, referring to the bill-this was I believe the year the bill was passed in the House of Commons and rejected in the Senate-said this:
If this bill passes, the obligation of the children to look after their father and mother and grandfather and grandmother goes by the board ... Is it
	j fj|

judicious for us to impose upon our country such socialistic legislation as this-because it is nothing else-when there is no call for it?
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned that the youngster of twenty-one would not like to start paying for legislation of this kind, for old age pensions and health services. But the hon. member forgets that when the youngster of twenty-one reaches the age of twenty-five, or perhaps earlier, he will be getting married, and I would imagine that he will have a mother-in-law and perhaps a father-in-law. He is also most likely to have a mother and father living at the time. Rather than have these people come in and live with him-unless he is already living with them-he will be very glad if they have old age pensions and old age security by which they are able to take care of themselves and live to themselves. My young friend is so old already that he does not know the minds of young people of today.
The quotation I have read was by Senator Beaubien in 1926. In 1927 the bill had passed again in the house. There had been an election, and the hon. senator had something further to say. He said- this:
This in my opinion is an iniquitous measure. First of all it is unhealthy in its basic moral principle. It is going to stunt the growth if it does not altogether blight and wither all incentive for thrift and providence in the land. Furthermore, it rests upon a very unsound financial structure. If we pass this measure, hon. gentlemen, I very much fear lest some day in the not very far distant future, that this country will be saddled with the obligation of paying yearly such huge sums as $30 million or $40 million.


Jean Lesage: Was he C.C.F. or Conservative?


Angus MacInnis: Well, now, I could not be sure, but, since he came from the province of Quebec, I would not be surprised to find that he was a Liberal.


Jean Lesage: No; he was a Conservative.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps he was. I am keeping away from politics. I am merely quoting history for the benefit of my young friends.


Jean Lesage: It does not at all resemble what I said.


Angus MacInnis: The sum of $30 million or $40 million was mentioned. Last year when the committee was being set up I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) talking in the "astronomical" figures of $500 million or something like that. I have not the exact figure here, but I think this year we are assuming an expenditure of $1,500 million for national defence, and no one has suggested that it is going to break the country. Over three years the expenditure is to be $5 billion.


Jean Lesage: We hope it will not be a fixed charge-that is the difference.


Angus MacInnis: Old Age Assistance Act people, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). They are ready to go further. I am taking this as one of the first steps of a full social program for Canada. And I, for one, am not afraid of the welfare state.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, much of what I would have had to say about the bill has already been said, and I have no intention of repeating. However, for a few moments I should like to speak with respect to the provisions for additional income, as they are set out in section 3 (2) (c) of the bill.
I think back to early in the session, on February 9, when I referred to the old age pension being paid at that time. My opinion has not changed, and I would say that with the introduction of this legislation I am sorry to see that the increase permitted is so small as to be of little help to the able-bodied person of 65 years or over who still has the ability and inclination to work.
The suggestion has been put forward this afternoon that, by such legislation, we may contribute to the belief that 65 years is the proper retirement age. I think that belief is already abroad in the country, and I am not inclined to believe that anything we could do at this stage would alter it. The government, the railways and other large organizations have had this retirement age in effect for some time. I see the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs shakes his head.


Jean Lesage: It is not exactly what I said.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If I have misinterpreted his remarks, then I shall admit I was in error. But I would remind the house that there are many people who, either through ill health or because of rules governing their employment, must cease work at the age of 65. They have a great capacity, collectively, for production. I have seen it happen in the age group of 70 and over, and I am sure it will happen in the age group of 65 to 69, when they are forced to apply for some sort of assistance.
The outcome is that when they are offered work they are no longer secure in the knowledge that the work they are offered will last for any great length of time. Otherwise they would probably be glad to take the work and 'forget about the pension. But, inasmuch as they may be employed today and unemployed tomorrow, they are unwilling to trade a small portion of security for very probable insecurity, and they cannot go on working and at the same time have a pension. They should not have to jeopardize their
'Mr. Maclnnis.]

pension when they earn more than what the legislation permits. In the present case that limit will be something under $5 per week. Of course, it has been even less than that. The outcome is that you encourage people to take employment only where no returns are made on employee records or at odd jobs. These people in many cases cannot be persuaded to take on any type of continuing work.
There is much seasonal employment available to these people and in many cases the returns would place them in comparative comfort. These people should be encouraged, particularly at a time when we need all possible production, to do what work they can. It is true that many of them are not capable of producing as they did twenty years ago, but collectively they represent a great productive capacity. I do not think we should discourage them by refusing to permit them to earn over the small amount set out in this bill.
When I spoke in February I referred to the fact that this point had been recognized by the income tax department when they granted an additional exemption to those over 65 years of age. I have no intention of reading from the record as it is there for those who wish to read. Shortly after that I placed on. the order paper a notice of motion which I had hoped might be reached and agreed to so that for at least a portion of this year these people would have been permitted to earn what they could.
At the risk of being slightly out of order I suggest to the minister that it is still not too late to take action, particularly in view of the fact that at a later date we are to consider legislation which removes the means test entirely. Before this session ends the minister could introduce a bill which would permit all of those now receiving old age pensions to earn what they could before the end of the year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would have to get the agreement of the ten provinces. This represents their wish.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot refute the
minister's statement, but I find it hard to believe that this represents the wishes of the provinces of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure my hon. friend that that is the case.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But not all of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All of them.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Every province?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every province.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot accept that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is talking about this bill?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I was talking about those 70 years and over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Excuse me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have talked with people in the welfare departments of various provinces and they told me that they think something should be done in this regard. It may be that their governments think differently. The minister has said that he cannot introduce such a bill and I am sorry to hear him say that because I would like to see these people permitted to take employment without having to go behind doors. We should bring to an end a situation which is certainly not in keeping with our-


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we are dealing with the sections of the bill I am sure I can satisfy my hon. friend.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be glad to hear what the minister has to say. It will be six months before this bill will come into effect and with the experience we have gained in the past few years with other pension legislation I think we should be ready to permit greater leeway to those in the 65 to 70 age group.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Unless my hon. friend wants to make some general observations I would suggest that some of this discussion could take place on the pertinent sections of the bill. Perhaps I should have made that suggestion to the hon. member who was speaking, but I think we have to treat her rather differently than we do the rest of the hon. members.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For that reason I did not rise to interrupt her remarks, but I think they might have been more apropos of particular sections.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate today has renewed much faith and restored much confidence in the heart and good conscience of parliament in general. This is a rather historic day and one which I think will long be remembered by Canadians. Members in all parts of the house, of all political parties and coming from all parts of Canada, have joined together in endorsing a humanitarian piece of legislation. I think it shows that at the bottom of every Canadian heart is a desire to see that those who need assistance and consideration will not be left without it so far as the legislators and the people of Canada are concerned.
There is only one thing in connection with this legislation that I regret. I referred to
Old Age Assistance Act this before and I repeat it. I do not like the words "old age." When we are doing such a magnificent job for a section of our people we ought to remove from the legislation anything that sounds like "old age". Surely there are ways of doing that. I made one suggestion the other day and there are other suggestions of equal merit that could be made. I hope that somehow we will find a way of abolishing the two words "old age" from our statutes. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the work that is now being undertaken on behalf of the senior citizens of Canada.
I do not think we should allow on our statute books something which offends the spirit of what we are trying to do.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the words "old age" are honourable and should be preserved. Of course in Hollywood they change the words to something else that might sound more attractive. This is compensation for old age and why should it not be phrased in that way. The poet was quite correct when he said:
Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made.
I hope that the bringing in of this legislation will not reduce in any way the responsibility of young people to their parents. I should like to make just one more reference. There were certain great men in British Columbia who during the last half century or more struggled to bring about the type of legislation we now have before us. I refer more particularly to the Hon. Ralph Smith, the leader of the Liberal party there and of the Labour party who was talking about this matter and waging a campaign for it fifty years ago. There is also the late Hon. William Sloan who was a friend of labour, of capital and of everything that was progressive. Then there was the late Mary Ellen Smith who was probably the originator of the idea of compensating the old age citizens of this country in this way. Mention has been made already of Dr. George Davidson who is an ornament to the civil service of Canada and who is a British Columbian. All these people, especially those who have passed along, should have their names preserved on the record and it should be noted that tributes have been paid to them.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I wish to say a word or two on this old age pensions bill. I do not want to detain the house at this particular time but I did not raise my voice at all on the minister's estimates. Neither have I discussed this question in the past couple of sessions. I do not think I should let it go by without taking the privilege of saying a word or two. I am sure it is a
4574	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act source of great satisfaction to all of us to know that we have now taken a progressive step, under the government's present financial policy, in the presentation of this measure lowering the pensionable age to 65 years. I feel rather reluctant to sound any other note than that of cheerfulness. Nevertheless I have one or two regrets, not particularly with respect to the bill itself but as to the principle involved in government policy with respect to security measures.
One regret I have is that, while the amount of the pension will be fixed by agreement between this government and the provincial governments, no account is taken of the possibility of fluctuation in the value of our dollar. This matter has been mentioned before in another way by previous speakers, and it is a very important question. I know that is the way present government policy works but their over-all financial policy does not seem to harmonize. We may think that $40, $50, or whatever the amount may be, is all right today when we are writing it into the legislation, but it does not take into account that in a year's time or five years' time the specified amount may not be worth very much.
There is an opinion among many people that the attitude towards security measures should take into consideration that very important principle of human nature which they call thrift. Over the years we have heard time and again that people should save for their old age. I do not know that I want to go to any extremes in an argument that may appear to be a rebuttal of that position, but we are living in a day and age when we have got to revamp our thinking with respect to these things. I quite believe that people should live with a view to spending their last years in comfort. Whether or not that will involve the matter of thrift is a question of choice of the individual. It he spends he should not be too harshly criticized.
If our entire economy with respect to social security were based on thrift and saving of course there would be many places where we could save. We could do without a lot of things which we do not do without. I am not advocating that we should. As an example, I do not know that we need to spend money on shaving soap and shaving cream. We could all grow beards if we wanted to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Use electric razors.


Ernest George Hansell: -and save money. My hon. friend has said that we could use electric razors. Why not save on electric razors and simply grow beards? We do not have to wear ties. We could go around without ties.
(Mr. Hansell.]


An hon. Member:: How far would you carry that?


Ernest George Hansell: We do not have to smoke. It is a nice enjoyable thing for some people, but in this corner of the house somebody smokes a stinking old corncob. To my mind I am sure we could do without that.


Arthur Laing: Not far from you.


Mr. Sinnolt:: Just behind you.


Ernest George Hansell: We could do without jewelry if we wanted to. We could do without a lot of things. We could do without cosmetics. Of course I know it would be terrible to look at our women without any lipstick, rouge and eyebrow pencilling. I know it would be a terrible thing if our women could not improve on what the good Lord has given them. Anyway my point is with respect to the question of thrift that after all the man who spends is a much more valuable citizen than the one who saves because it is only through the process of spending that the wheels of industry turn. The attitude among some is: You will not have anything if you do not save. That is wrong. The true fact of the matter is that you only have when you spend because the only way you can get anything is to spend. Of course once again it comes down to a matter of financial policy. We have a false sense of real values. I think we are a bunch of screwballs.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the way it appears to me. We do so many crazy things. I say once again that the financial policy of the government will have to change in some way or other because the amounts that are going to be decided upon in this legislation may not be adequate in the years ahead. I have another regret, and I cannot express it any better than the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), who unconsciously stole a part of my speech.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Not only yours but mine.


Ernest George Hansell: We have largely forgotten the incurables who are in desperate need. I know the minister is just as concerned about the incurables as any of us. I have spoken to him about these people. He has a sympathetic heart, not only by reason of what he has heard but by reason of the fact that he has had actual experience with the unfortunate position of these people. I know his heart is with them and that he is only restricted by the fact that the amount of money the government will allow him for the various welfare matters he would like to expand is also restricted. You know, there are in the country incurables much more in need of financial assistance than some of these people between 65 and 69; yet there is

nothing on our statute books to provide for them. I only say to the minister that as we rejoice in this step I hope we will not permit this legislation to preclude doing something for the incurables. Let us not say that since we cannot do everything the incurables will just have to wait, that we favour the old age pensioner of 65 to 69 a little more than we favour the incurable. That may appear to be the situation, and it is so unfortunate. We have not before us the bill concerning pensions to those 70 and over, but I do know great pressure was brought on the government by powerful organizations to do away with the means test. To some extent that pressure may have been slightly selfish, not so much by reason of human nature as by reason of our financial policy. The powerful labour organizations spread their advertising over the newspapers of Canada urging the elimination of this means test. Of course they had a reason for that; as long as the means test remained ft might interfere with their industrial pensions. The poor incurables did not have any powerful organizations to present their case. They are not so numerous; they are not so influential, because they cannot get together by reason of their particular physical circumstances. There is no one to plead their case, so I hope that as we go forward with this measure we will not forget them. I am sure the minister will say he has not forgotten them. Well, we want that remembrance to be translated into action.
There is just one other matter I want to mention, and it also has to do with the financial policy of the government in respect to this measure. I mentioned this to the minister a couple of years ago, but it needs to be mentioned again and again. We are going forward with this legislation at a time when revenues are high. These are steps which cannot be retraced. Once you launch upon a measure like this you cannot go to the people later on, and say, "We are sorry; we passed legislation giving you this pension and now we will have to take it away from you because our revenues are not sufficient to pay it". You cannot retrace your steps in a matter of this kind. When the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was speaking of the financial position of Alberta he mentioned quite correctly that the impression abroad is that Alberta is simply rolling in wealth. Well, it is a wealthy province. It is true that business is good. We are proud of our province. The revenues accruing to the government there may not be as high as most people think, but the government has followed a very wise policy in turning back those revenues to the people in the form of roads, bridges, hospital services, new hospitals, new schools and so on, steps that will not
Old Age Assistance Act have to be retraced if the revenues should not be forthcoming. It is one thing when revenues are high to put them into fixed assets, and another to embark upon schemes of this nature. I asked the minister what we would do with these measures if a depression should ever come and revenues should be very low. When I asked that question a couple of years ago the minister said he had great confidence in the country, that we had embarked on things in other years and always had been able to make a go of it. Well, of course, under the present financial policy that is the best answer the minister could give because the question could not be answered in any other way. He has no answer to it. These are things we have to think about in any long-range view of these matters.
There is one other very incidental matter I want to suggest to the minister; no doubt he has thought of it already. I understand that at the present time many people covered by this bill and the other legislation concerning those 70 and over are making application.
I understand a great many inquiries are being made, that the provincial old age pension boards are being swamped and are not able to answer the questions being asked simply because they do not have the information, since the legislation has not been passed. I suggest to the minister that he make an adequate announcement, and that it be given the widest publicity. We have the press that enjoys the confidence of the government. We have the radio, both our C.B.C. and the independent stations, that enjoy the confidence of the government. I am going to ask that, in order to relieve the old age pensions boards of a tremendous volume of work they will have to do, the minister give the widest publication to all the rules and regulations that should be known to those who are about to apply for the old age pension. It will not be sufficient to make a statement unless the statement is exhaustive enough to give that information. He should appeal to those media for disseminating information to give the widest publicity to those things.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will.


Ernest George Hansell: I know the minister will do that. Once again I wish to congratulate the minister upon this measure. There were one or two other little things I was going to mention. Coming from another part of the house I should mention that although I was not on the old age security committee which met last year, I have heard good reports of the excellent manner in which the chairman of that committee conducted the work. I should like to pass that on to him as coming
4576	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act from a private member who, most of the time, has his ear to the ground. We do trust that the minister will take cognizance of these matters that we have brought to his attention.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: I merely want to say that I trust this memorable day in the history of Canada's social security service will help make memorable the many birthdays which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will enjoy in the future.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to say a word or two in support of old age pensions. I have not done so for several years. There was a time when I spoke regularly in support of a better old age pension for our senior citizens of Canada, but I have more or less given myself over to other activities lately, and consequently have left this matter to other members in my group. However, I have not by any means lost my interest in this matter. I heartily support the bill which is now before the house. I should like to congratulate the minister who has, by long and strenuous efforts, finally been able to accomplish the objective he has for several years had in mind.
May I just say one word in respect to the matter of financing this measure? What the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has said requires serious thought. If we were to enter a depression we should have serious difficulty indeed raising the money to support such social services as we all desire to support. Even with our revenues as buoyant as they now are, I imagine the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has grave misgivings as to the ability of the nation to finance these ambitious plans which everyone desires to see materialize.
May I point out to the members once more what I laboured to point out to them on June 20? On that day I spoke about the Bradbury experiment in England during world war I. I believe that everybody who read the words I uttered on that occasion must have been impressed with the fact that a state-created unit of money was used with a great deal of success in Britain during that most trying experience of the war.
State money can be used for lending as it was in the Bradbury experiment. Surely similar state money could be used for spending to finance such things as old age pensions, pensions for the blind and pensions for the incurable. In the friendly discussion which I had with the Minister of Finance that night, it was brought out that sound money was money which was supported by sufficient goods and services and a stable price structure. The more goods and services that this


country can produce and put into the market, the more money can be put into circulation in the country. If sufficient goods and services can be fabricated and brought into the markets of the country, enough state money can be created to, shall we say, "chase those goods".
It is common in the house now to say that inflation results from too many dollars chasing too few goods. That is correct. If you get plenty of goods for the dollars to "chase", you will not have any trouble. If you get too many goods for the dollars to "chase", then prices will come down too far and you will have a depression. As the amount of goods for the dollars to "chase" increases, then the government could safely create and spend into circulation more dollars to "chase" those goods. I am using the common expressions which are used in the house.
That will be very encouraging to all who have to do with the matter of financing. That is the test. As our production overtakes our effective demand, as I believe it now has done in Canada, it is going to become more and more feasible for the government to create money debt free in this nation. That will mean a new source of revenue so that it will not be necessary to put upon the provinces the burden of financing old age pensions, pensions for the blind and all these other social services. The dominion government can assume that burden through its constitutional ability to create money debt free backed by the goods and services of the country.
I wish to point out to the minister that the next time the member for Macleod asks him that question of his, the minister can answer it just this way:	"With our wonderful
machines now coming into use, our wonderful technological skills, as a result of which we can make almost anything from almost anything-as for example nylon-and with the remarkable extent to which we can employ solar energy for the fabricating or processing of our resources into desirable goods, we have no fear in the world of being unable to finance the old age pension or any other social service we may consider it wise to finance. If we once adopt the understanding that the state can create money, independent of the banks, to represent the goods and services as they increase in the land, our only concern then is going to ibe to produce enough goods and services. Surely everyone in this house and in this country realizes that we can produce all the milk, cream, butter, cheese, apples, meat, coal and other things the people might need to enable them to enjoy a good standard of living. There is no question concerning that matter".

I would say this much just by way of encouraging the Minister of Finance, and to reassure the people of the country, that if we will adopt a sound, realistic financial system we simply do not need to be afraid to bring into being all the social services we desire.
A question has been raised as to whether we could safely create and spend much debt-free money at the present time in Canada. I cannot be sure about that. The stand I have taken all through this year has been that our supply position is good enough to permit that we create money even today, probably hundreds of millions of dollars of it, and spend it safely not only on old age pensions but in other desirable ways. If our supply position is not sufficient we would not be able to create new money without causing difficulties. But if our supply is adequate we would be able to create and spend new money safely. As to whether or not our supply is adequate, we would have to have the experts of the land study the whole question and then report to us.
I believe it would be interesting to hon. members to study the two important bank letters of June, namely, the Bank of Nova Scotia monthly letter and the Bank of Montreal monthly letter which have just come to our desks today. They speak rather glowingly of the tremendous increase in Canadian production, and point out that we are now in a rather sound supply position, and we are rapidly becoming more sound because, we might say, the productive capacity of the nation is completely overtaking the financial capacity of the nation to consume. If such be the case, and I believe it is, then the minister could arrange matters with his colleague, if he could bring him to see eye to eye with him, which must be done, to provide for the financing of a great many of these expenditures by the device of creating debt-free money backed by the goods and services in the state and capable of coming into existence in the state through the use of the resources both human and material in the state.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On this clause can the minister indicate what is to become of the provision now made under the present old age pensions legislation for medical assistance, including services as well as medicine and drugs, for persons qualifying under the means test?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are matters obviously not covered by this bill, and they are matters
Old Age Assistance Act which we regard as coming within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and which are so regarded by them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One further question: Does that mean that in the new scheme, including the universal pension to those seventy and over, the contribution from the dominion to the medical assistance of the group will cease, and there will be some saving to the dominion in that respect to set off against the assumption of 100 per cent of the cost of the pension for those seventy and over?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I have said. These are pension measures. Medical and hospital attention given to pensioners in the various provincial jurisdictions continues to be their responsibility.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask the minister one other question on the same subject? I accept the validity of the reply that he gave to that question that it is within provincial government jurisdiction and that some provincial governments have been providing certain medical services. Has there ever been any discussion between the government of Canada and the government of the provinces in regard to the providing of medical and hospital services to persons getting old age pensions and now old age assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not be correct if I said there never had been any discussion. One or two provinces have asked me in private conference what our attitude with regard to that would be, and we have always taken the position that these are matters that come under the normal function of the provinces, and that we would continue to regard them as such. Indirectly of course we do give assistance, not specifically, under the national health program, but there is no thought at the present time of going beyond that.


Angus MacInnis: I appreciate that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have made the suggestion to some of the provinces in one section of the country, where they have given more assistance in this regard than in others, that some formula might be arrived at, not by agreement necessarily but by understanding in all the provinces where that sort of thing is done, so that there would be uniform practice and so that no unfair advantage could be taken of one province as opposed to another, because of action that in the light of its responsibilities it thought it should take. I do not want to say any more than that, because these are matters that concern the provinces, but I think that step is going to be taken.


Angus MacInnis: I will not take it any farther either. The statement that has been made is encouraging. I believe that with so many
4578	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act hospital services and medical services being provided now by both the provinces, and with the assistance of the national government, that would be a proper subject for discussion between the minister and the provinces.


Ernest George Hansell: Just a question with respect to this paragraph on provincial authority. Does this bill, taken with the bill that will eventually come down respecting pensions for those over-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is referring to paragraph (e) of section 2. We are still on section 1.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Ernest George Hansell: This bill and the bill that we look forward to at the fall session respecting pensions over 70, and the removal of the means test, are complementary one to the other except the administration. Is it the intention that the same old age pension board administering the pension legislation in the provinces will take care of and administer the two acts? In other words, since the provincial governments will have no obligations in respect to the old age pensioners over 70, will this government set up a different office to administer them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the 65 to 69 group the provinces of course will have the final decision, but they will I know continue to carry on with regard to that group as they do now as regards those receiving pensions at the age of 70.
With regard to those receiving universal pensions at 70, when the act is passed in the fall, that will become the responsibility, administratively, and otherwise, of the federal government, and we will use our own family allowances offices stationed in the ten capitals of the ten provinces for that purpose; but I have no doubt that if we did need assistance of boards on examinations we would have no difficulty in making such arrangements. At the moment, however, we do not think it will be necessary.


Ernest George Hansell: So it is just a matter of
transferring the pensions, when the pensioner reaches 70, to the family allowances administration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I was going to ask a question with regard to the definition of "unmarried person" as it is set out in paragraph (i). That seems to make the matter overly simple, does it not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the same as in the present act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It has the
sanction of practice?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with section 2 (c). I hope I shall not be ruled out of order if I do not stick too close to the wording of the section, because an opportunity did not present itself to make these observations until we reached the committee stage.
May I express to the Minister of National Health and Welfare my appreciation of the bill he has brought to the house, and to those hon. members who acted on the committee. May I also express my admiration of the hon. member for Terrebonne who, in the past, has been most active along these lines.
May I point out that I, too, in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, addressed the house on February 8 with respect to these unfortunate people. While the hon. member for Spadina said today that he was introducing a point that had not been discussed before, I would point out to him that there are several members in the House of Commons who have been fighting for these unfortunate crippled and handicapped people for some time. Four or five days ago I had in mind moving an amendment to the bill which would have included the 35,000 crippled people who are unable to look after themselves.
The hon. member for Spadina suggested to me that time that I should hold my peace, and that this matter would be looked after at a later time. Let me say at once to the minister that next year, if this legislation is not introduced, my voice will be heard both loud and long.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure the hon. member that when he speaks I listen with close attention.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: In view of what the minister has said I feel certain that those about whom I have just spoken will be receiving assistance in the near future.
I do not wish to repeat anything that has been said, and have spoken at this time only because what I had to say could best be said in committee. Let me say at once that I concur in everything that has been done for the people who will be affected by this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Agreements with provinces.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two expressions in this section of the bill that require some explanation, and one or two paragraphs which call for some further comment. Those of us who spoke today on
(Mr. Maclnnis.]

second reading, with few exceptions, I believe, stressed what we described as the inadequacy of the permission granted in respect of the receipt of supplemental income.
I realize that this is a difficult matter for amendment because it is, in fact, a money bill. But so far as I am aware we have not had from the minister any justification for fixing the ceiling of supplementary income for married couples who qualify under the bill for assistance at the same figure as the ceiling for the individual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has just put it forward as though it was a demonstration of generosity that spoke for itself and required no explanation. Those of us who do not regard it as an act of generosity are looking for some explanation. We are dubious about the possibility of being given any sensible explanation of treatment like this accorded to married couples.
For my own part, the provision made here for supplemental income for single recipients of old age assistance is not adequate. But when we come to examine the permission granted the married couple, both of whom are in receipt of assistance, and find that not one cent more is permitted that couple than is permitted to the individual, it becomes patently indefensible. If the minister has anything to say on the subject by way of attempted justification I am sure the committee would like to hear it. It will be the first time we have had any serious attempt by him to justify something which most of us regard as quite indefensible.
Then, while I am on my feet, I would ask the minister for an explanation of section 3 (2) (b), where there is reference to the person who "is not in receipt of an allowance under the Blind Persons Act". My understanding is that the Blind Persons Act is the bill we will discuss immediately after the discussion on this one is completed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then in the same paragraph there is reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. The minister owes the committee a statement of the way in which these two acts will affect each other. That was a matter of some concern in the committee last year, as to how far any pensions which might be granted to those in the seventy-years-and-over group might mesh in with the provisions for war veterans.
Then there is a reference to the Old Age Security Act. So far as I am aware there is no such act. Is this a reference to a bill to
Old Age Assistance Act be introduced in the fall? iMy understanding is that the present act is entitled the Old Age Pensions Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I am prepared to answer now; but if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to discuss the same matter, I shall defer my answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wished to discuss chiefly the first of the two matters mentioned by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very well; then I shall deal with both questions at once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall deal with only
one matter just now, and I shall speak to it only briefly because I discussed it rather fully this morning. As the minister will recall, I attempted to remind him of the history of the provision with regard to other income. In common with others who have spoken, I do not feel that the other income permitted in this bill is sufficient, and I do not think it is in conformity with the spirit of the recommendation in that respect made by last year's committee on old age security.
But if we cannot persuade the government to make any other change regarding other income, then I suggest that at least it should meet our point that the amount allowed a married couple should be greater than that allowed a single pensioner. I repeat what I said this morning-and I am satisfied it is unanswerable-that at the time the government arrived at equality between married couples and single pensioners it was an accident. I feel strongly about the decision the government has now made to carry forward that accident. I feel that in 1947, when the government made the change to $20 a month for single persons and $30 a month for married couples as other allowable income, while those amounts were not sufficient, at least the relationship had been consciously thought out.
That was not the result in 1949. I plead strongly that we get back to the aspect of the situation that obtained for twenty-two years out of the twenty-four years we have had old age pensions, namely that there be more for married couples than for single persons. I would be very glad if the minister would deal with that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall try to deal quickly and comprehensively with the three questions, two of which have been asked by two hon. members.
First of all, as to the question of adequacy of permissible income, and the fact that no special attention by way of increase has been given to married couples as opposed to single persons. Those two questions are really part

Old Age Assistance Act of the whole question discussed with the provinces.
I would remind the committee of the special committee's report in this particular as it is found at page 108, where it states:
For the age group 65 and over not eligible for the universal benefit, old age assistance at the rate of $40 a month should be available, subject to an eligibility test in some respects similar to that which exists under the present old age assistance program, but modified to take account of the different characteristics of the age group to which this test is to apply, and adjusted in such a way as to recognize to a greater extent than at present the desirability of encouraging recipients to earn supplemental income.
The conference with the provinces was an extremely useful one. I have attended five different federal-provincial conferences and I have never attended one which was so harmoniously and fairly pursued by all parties. It would be improper for me to say what any particular province said, and even if it were proper I would not want to embarrass any province because they have their administrative difficulties; but I may say that at one time the attitude of all the provinces was that the present permissible income level should not be increased. There was agreement among many provinces that provision should be made for income casually earned, but there was not unanimity on that. No one finally suggested an amount that was higher than what is contained in the present bill.
Many of the provinces did say that as this was a new departure we ought to build on experience and that while there were objections to the extent of the level of the permissible income that is now contained in the Old Age Pensions Act, experience ought to be allowed to develop before we made any fundamental change. Great reliance was placed upon the committee's report during our discussions.
While most of the provinces would have preferred to provide for the permissible income through casual earnings in regulations rather than in the act, the more we thought of it, and as a result of subsequent discussions over the telephone and so on, the clearer it became that to leave casual earnings to the extent of any stated increase permitted by way of regulation and not by statutory direction would create difficult if not almost impossible administrative problems for the provinces.
One province that had had great experience because of its huge population simply said that it would be impossible to administer a regulation covering a permissible income up to a certain amount. -I can only say that in the light of these discussions, although the decision was not made known to them at the
(Mr. Martin.]
time, we have decided that the most convenient way to increase the permissible income was in the act, and we have done that. I may say that that represents the highest level suggested by any province at the conference. The provinces have a responsibility in this matter, as we will have. Some of them are going to have greater responsibilities than others for reasons such as those indicated by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Recognizing that, as well as recognizing the position of the provinces generally, what we have in the act represents our ability, the ability of the eleven senior governments, to provide for a more generous form of eligibility test than is now the case.
With regard to married couples, I may say that some provinces were of the view that the preferential increase should apply to the single individual and not to the married couples. Those views were put forward strongly by some, but the general view prevailed that it would be better to have it on an equal basis. As I say, there were some who thought that the single persons were more entitled to an increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be what was behind the $20 and $30 arrangement in 1947?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I will not say that this represents in every particular what they wanted but it does represent the maximum position.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister think that it represents common sense?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it represents common sense. Each province has to approach this in the light of its own difficulty. It may have taken me some time to learn this, but in the administration of these matters I am anxious that we have as much understanding between ourselves and the provinces as is possible. We have that now and I do not want to say anything here, and I know no hon. member will put me in the position where I have to, that will embarrass any one of the provinces in respect to its administration of this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word before we leave that matter.
I appreciate the spirit in which the minister has dealt with this question. I gather from the position he takes that our chances of getting him to change the figures in the bill now before us are not too good, but I certainly hope that this matter will be given active consideration in the light of experience that develops and that a change will be made if a change is indicated, as I believe it will be, at the earliest possible date.

It is clear from what the minister has just said that it was not possible to get unanimous agreement on every point of detail among the eleven governments concerned. It is clear that the federal government had to take the final responsibility for what is in (the bill now before us. In fact the minister has just indicated that the federal government finally decided to put this change in the act rather than to make it subject to regulation, as apparently had been decided upon at the conference on May 23. If it is the federal government that has to take the final responsibility I think we are not only justified, but it is our obligation to press upon the government what we feel is, as the hon. member for Greenwood has just said, a matter of common sense.
May I point out that when the arrangement was made for other income of $20 for single persons and $30 for married persons, that recognized the preferential difference to which the minister has referred in favour of the single person. That was agreed to by the provinces and the minister made a great deal out of that in 1947. I remember very well when we debated the changes in the act on that occasion. Since the provinces agreed to that figure at that time I feel certain that if the government had taken the responsibility of making these figures such as to provide $20 of other income for single persons and $30 for married couples there would not have been any objection from any province. I repeat that the only reason we got into this situation of having the two figures identical was an accident, and my legal friend to my right reminded me last time I used that phrase that it was an accident and not an act of God.
I have in my hand a copy of the 1948 office consolidation of the Old Age Pensions Act. It has been metamorphosed into a 1950 office consolidation by making in it the only changes necessary to incorporate the amendments of 1949. That year all we did was to change two words; indeed we just changed one word twice. We changed "thirty" to "forty" in two different places. In other words, what was being done in 1949 when we increased the basic pension from $30 to $40 was to make the change just as simply as the government could possibly arrange it, and it was doing it in that simple way that produced the accident of making the allowable income for a single person and a married couple the same. I am not going to pursue it any further just now, but I cannot help regretting that that accident, that error, that wrong way of doing it is being carried forward in this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In order to be quite clear, I must say that my hon. friend is not correct
Old Age Assistance Act in what he says. This represents a dominion-provincial understanding. In fact most of the provinces-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said a few
minutes ago that a change was made after the provincial representatives went home.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I have said stands. I am saying that this is clear. This represents a dominion-provincial arrangement, and one on which we have gone, so far as permissible income is concerned, a little farther than most of the provinces would have gone. I think the hon. member for Eglinton asked about section 3 (2) (b), war veterans allowances. We had intended in the legislation to permit war veterans to receive assistance under this measure. We thought it was desirable not to have any group excluded. However, when we went to the provinces there were several points of view expressed. First of all there was the point of view expressed by two provinces that the war veterans allowance was an allowance given to a group for a special contribution in the national interest, and that many would want to continue receiving assistance under the war veterans allowance rather than under the Old Age Assistance Act.
Moreover, as one province pointed out, the amount of benefit under the War Veterans Allowance Act is slightly greater than the basic pension of $40. All of the provinces, however, agreed that the reference to war veterans allowance should continue to be included in this section, so that war veterans should continue to get assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act. It was further argued that if the original intention that we had in mind was pursued the dominion would be getting out of the financial responsibility which it now has assumed as the result of action which it has taken in the War Veterans Allowance Act so far as war veterans are concerned. In the light of the view taken by the provinces we decided to proceed as we are now proceeding under 3 (2) (b).


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are one or two comments I should like to make. First of all on the point last dealt with by the minister, namely, the reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act, it becomes clear that anybody who is in receipt of any allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act is thereby automatically disqualified from becoming the recipient of any assistance under this act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that is a little stern.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is because the provinces want it. Every province wanted that. As I have said, we thought they should be
4582	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act included, but I have given you three reasons why the provinces strongly took that attitude.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I still retain my opinion that it is a narrow view, an altogether too stern and rigid view to take of the situation. The provinces may have to take the responsibility for this provision that the minister is now placing on their shoulders, but I am expressing my opinion without qualification that the position in which this section leaves the matter is not fair to those who by their services in the national interest have entitled themselves to the recognition that parliament has given them under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should have added another reason. The war veteran receives special medical and hospital attention, and as he could not take benefits under both acts that was regarded by the provinces as a very important consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am concerned about seeing that the veteran obtains more than he is receiving now because I have seen cases where the allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act is quite inadequate, and I think that this is one case where some additional assistance might well have been given to the veteran. However, that is my opinion. Apparently it is not going to make an impression on the minister, but I retain the opinion.
On the first point the minister has again sought to place responsibility on the provinces for this invidious discrimination against a married couple, both of whom are on old age pension, in the matter of supplemental income. The thing just offends common sense, and if the provinces are to bear the responsibility that the minister has cast upon them in his statement this afternoon I am going to express my personal opinion again that no defence has been put forward that would appeal to common sense to substantiate this discrimination against a married couple, both of whom are on the old age pension, in the matter of supplemental income. I think an injustice is going to be created at once.
The minister asks for time to watch this. Of course there are many things that are going to need to be watched with some care, but I am satisfied that here is one which, on the face of it, creates such a palpable injustice that the house should not legislate in that form.
If the minister cannot obtain unanimity at the present time in favour of some consideration for the second member of the married couple, then why could this legislation not be drawn in such form as to permit the earning of a larger income, with the contribution


by the federal government at 50 per cent, to the extent permitted by the government of the particular province? If some provinces are not prepared to go a little further than the narrow terms in which clause 3 (2) (c) (ii) is written, then I do not see why, if other provinces are willing to permit the earning of a larger income by the married couple, the recipients in the latter provinces should be held back because there are some provinces that will not go the whole way. Why should the legislation not be written in that broader form, and, so far as individual provinces are prepared to agree to an enlargement of the permissible income for a married couple, put it into effect with respect to those people?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add one word on that point. I glean the fact that the permissible income to be earned is the same for an individual and a married couple. I have tried to imagine myself explaining that to some people in my riding, and if all I can do is to read to them what the minister has said this afternoon I would hope that they would understand it better than I do. However touched I was by the minister's generous references to the provinces, even if there were twenty provinces instead of ten and they all said it was sensible, it still would not be sensible to me. I realize all the difficulties inherent in it and that with respect to many of the problems one can take two views. Nevertheless I cannot see how anyone can stand up to an ordinary citizen who is affected and say that a married couple are supposed to have the same permissible earned income as a single person. While I am on my feet I want to raise this question of earned income, because it is obviously so important.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will not forget that in the case of a married couple there are two pensions; they each get a pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they have two mouths to feed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The other point is this, and I mention it more or less tentatively. We all recognize the desirability of leaving an incentive to earn. We also realize the difficulty when the permissible amount is overstepped, and the case I want to mention is this. Suppose we get to July 1 and in the first six months of the year the pensioner has earned as much as he is permitted. In- many -cases I am afraid the pensioner will fear that if he exceeds the permitted amount he will lose his pension position, even though his earnings might be quite precarious. Is there any way in which by introducing a monthly allowance, if that is administratively possible, you could in some

way remedy the simple situation I have outlined? A man earns all he is permitted to earn in the first six months of the year; then he sits down and does nothing for the rest of the year. That is obviously bad in two ways. In the first place the country loses the production; in the second place it is very bad for the morale of the person concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to make it clear that in the case of a single person the permissible income will be $240. In the case of a married couple where only one is on pension the permissible income is $720, so there is no comparison. Where they are both pensioned they get $480 each plus the difference between that and $1,200 by way of permissible income.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What the minister says does not get away from the plain fact that where they are both on pension the permissible amount is the same for two in the one case as for one in the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a rather lengthy clause dealing with several subjects, and I wanted to say a word about two others. During the debate on second reading the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet said that when we got into committee the minister would explain why the committee did not accept the recommendation of the committee that the residence requirement for this assistance be fifteen years. This clause says it must be twenty years, despite our clear-cut recommendation that it be only fifteen years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The twenty-year residence requirement is the same as in section 8 of the present act. As my hon. friend has suggested, the parliamentary committee did recommend fifteen years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fifteen for this and twenty for the other.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the provinces were opposed to a reduction in the period. Reduction of the residence period under old age assistance below twenty years, while retaining a twenty-year residence requirement for universal pensions under the old age security legislation, would mean that in some cases provinces would have to continue paying old age assistance to persons beyond the age of 70 who were eligible on grounds of residence for old age assistance but who had not yet established eligibility on grounds of residence under the old age security legislation. The main reason was that the provinces felt-and I must say that after listening to them I felt the same- that the residence requirement should remain as it is for this particular group of people receiving assistance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a member of the committee I can say we were aware of the point
Old Age Assistance Act just mentioned by the minister. In fact while we repeatedly refer in popular usage to this as the program for those 65 to 69, we knew that in some cases it was a program for those 65 and over, even over 70. That is, we envisaged the possibility of people who would not qualify for this assistance until 68, and therefore would not qualify for the universal pension until 73. Our feeling in the committee was that such people, particularly if they were unable to work and earn their own living, would have to be assisted by the community in some way and that this was probably the best way to do it. In other words the point that has been raised did not escape the committee. Our feeling was that it would be a good idea to have these two requirements mesh, and that was one reason we proposed fifteen years' residence for the pension payable at 65 and twenty years for the universal pension payable at 70. I am disappointed that when the provinces made that objection the government changed it in this way. If they felt they had to meet the objection of the provinces I think it would have been better to leave this at fifteen years and reduce the requirement under the other legislation to the same period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The provinces did not want that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Always blaming the provinces.


Mr. Hodgson:: As far as new people coming to Canada are concerned, does their twenty-year period start when they come to this country or when they take out naturalization papers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From the time they apply or from the time they are 65 years of age, whichever is the lesser. Nationality is not a qualifying basis; it is residence.


Ernest George Hansell: I have to ask this question in respect to the amounts they are allowed to earn, in the light of the forthcoming legislation. Take the case of an aged couple where the husband is over 70. He will be in receipt of a pension without a means test. His wife, who is 66 or 68-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the $40 at 70 be part of the income? The answer is yes.


Ernest George Hansell: That does not seem fair, because you are actually imposing a means test upon the husband who is' over 70. It means that if their pension is $40 each, between the two they will be permitted to earn only $240 a year, and in that sense the means test is being imposed upon the husband.

Old Age Assistance Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not dealt with the question I raised about the reference to the Old Age Security Act in line 23.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am told that there is a precedent for that. The act has not come into effect, but I am told it is correct draftsmanship to anticipate something that is intended to become law. If it did not come of course we would have to deal with it, but I am told by the Department of Justice that this is proper. As a matter of fact it is their own drafting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It strikes me as a most extraordinary form.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It struck me, too; but that is their advice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right, but you do not always act on their advice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have to act on the advice of the officers of the crown even though you and I, being better lawyers; may know that it should not be done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister may have a point there. It strikes me as a most extraordinary form of legislation to make reference to an act that does not exist and may never come into existence.


Arthur Laing: That is just a lawyer's argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be a great pity if we did not have some regard for law and sensible methods in our legislation here.


Arthur Laing: What does it matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure my hon. friend, whose regard for legal exactitude I appreciate, that I was struck with the same difficulty. I cannot do any more than assure him that the law officers said it was all right. It is not a fundamental matter, and I agree with him, but all I can say is that is what the law officers advised.


Ernest George Hansell: In respect of the question I asked a while ago, I do wish the minister would give some consideration to that, because the legislation is certainly imposing a means test upon a pensioner over 70 years of age. If that is done, I can no longer advise the older men to take unto themselves a younger spouse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the main section of the bill. We have now discussed most of the elements involved in this pension, except the amount of the pension itself. The amount is spelled out in this section as being a maximum of $40 per month.
During the debate on second reading there seemed to be some displeasure felt by hon. members on the government side of the house that some of us on this side did not confine


our speeches to praise of this bill. As a matter of fact, we did indicate, all of us who spoke, our real pleasure that this measure has been introduced. I need not go into that again. Maybe we said too much along that line. But I feel that hon. members who want us to be perfectly satisfied with it and do nothing but praise it, are not fully in touch with the times nor with what is taking place in the field of social security. I had occasion this morning to take up the minister's remark that the work of our special committee had been noted in the United States. Indeed, I quoted from a publication which I had received, put out by the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago, dated September, 1950. It is entitled "Business Conditions". My quotations from this pamphlet this morning were in the field of theory regarding old age security.
I shall now take a moment to refer to an article in this same pamphlet entitled "Federal Old-Age Insurance Program Expanded." It is an account of the changes in United States social security legislation resulting from the approval of H. R. 6,000, which was passed on August 28, 1950. That refers to a bill which received approval in the house of representatives on that date. The article deals with improvements made in the old age security legislation in the United States, and I am keenly interested in discovering that there have been improvements made since our own special committee studied the situation in the United States last year. I am satisfied that our committee profited greatly by our study of United States experience. The place where we have shown that profit the most is by deciding on the principle of universality at least for those of age 70 and over.
Lest the minister get away with the statement that we have the finest program in the world, which is quite an exaggeration, let me point out that according to this article the changes made by H. R. 6,000 provide some real improvements in the amount of the old age payments made in the United States. I quote briefly from the article:
For workers retiring in the next few years, the changes are expected to raise the average benefits to $50-55, which is significantly above the average amount currently paid under old age assistance.
Then a little later in the same paragraph we find this:
Furthermore, the maximum total benefit payable, including special allowances, is increased from $85 per month to $150.
I submit that this morning when I was expressing dissatisfaction over the fact that we have provided a pension of only $40 per month, and when I was suggesting we should now be considering old age pensions of $60

per month, I was not being extravagant at all in relation to conditions on the North American continent. In the eyes of some the figure I was suggesting was still too low. I make that answer to those members who were not satisfied because we did not spend all our time praising this measure. It is a good measure, because it lowers the pensionable age to 65, and even though that is all it does we are glad we are getting it on the statute books. But this $40 with which we are starting off for the group from 65 to 69 is a figure that, before very long, we shall certainly have to increase, and I shall continue to urge that that be done.


[Stage Direction]
Sectioh agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6

Census records.
Ernest George Hansell: Section 6 concerns the matter of the census records. This matter is also partly covered by section 11.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the same as the section in the act now.


Ernest George Hansell: What I have in mind is this. It relates to a method of proving age. I am just wondering-I know it is a difficult thing, but I believe that the old age pension board will have to be given certain latitude in respect of the proving of age. They do their best, but very often-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the case to which my hon. friend is referring, and I fully agree with him. If he will just leave the matter with me, when the old age pension board meets in July I shall take it up with them.


Ernest George Hansell: I was not going to mention that case. I shall not mention it except to say that the minister-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You did it. I did not do anything.


Ernest George Hansell: -cleared up the case for me. I was referring particularly now to the census records. I had a case some years ago, and it was a rather difficult one. The census records do not always prove age.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is just enabling and may be acceptable as evidence, but often it is not very helpful.


Ernest George Hansell: If the minister will allow me to explain my case, then he will get the full picture. In fact, the census record may be a hindrance to an applicant's claim. I have in mind a case where an old gentleman thought he was two years younger than he was. In the various censuses that were taken he gave his age as he thought it was. He got married, and at that time-
Old Age Assistance Act


James Sinclair: That is when he found out he was older.


Ernest George Hansell: -he thought he should give his age. There was no sense trying to fool his wife. This old gentleman could not secure a birth certificate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to say that it would be a matter of great satisfaction if we could get through this bill before six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we do sit past six o'clock, can it be understood that we take that much longer in coming back at eight o'clock. I ask that, not for ourselves-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. If hon. members are going to act like that I will insist that we do call it six o'clock, and rise now.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us go on. We will do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister knows my point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He accepts it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not get through telling about the old gentleman. He could not secure a birth certificate. Eventually his sister discovered that he was not on pension and advised him to apply for it. She said: "You are 70". He said: "No, I am only 67 or so". She said: "No, I remember when you were born. You are so many years younger than I am". He attempted to prove his age through the census records and they went against him. You see it was quite difficult. I mention this simply to ask the minister to give the various authorities a certain latitude. I would prefer that the words "reasonable proof" be used in the bill.


Robert Fair: I have been trying to get on my feet, but my friend kept stepping up in my way. I have brought to the attention of the minister on different occasions previously the cases of people who came over from Poland, Russia, Ukraine or somewhere else. They have not been able to find any proof whatsoever of age. There are in my constituency many who are still without pension, and in my opinion they are justly entitled to it. About two years ago I asked the present minister about it. He said the new act took care of it, but the new act did nothing of the

Old Age Assistance Act kind. We are still without pension for these people. I hope some method will be adopted so that people who are of the full age of 70- and under this legislation 65-will be able to establish, either through the census or through shipping records, how old they are if they cannot produce a birth certificate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will be discussing that when the board meets.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Provisions of agreement.
Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to clause 7 may I point out that the language in (a), (b) and (c) seems to me to be exactly the same language that is in sections 3 (1) (b) of the present Old Age Pensions Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Paragraph (a) is new.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, (a) is new, and (b) and (c) are in exactly the same language as the present law. I emphasize the point that both the minister and I made this morning that under the wording of 3 (1) (b) of the present act there have been no differences among the provinces in the maximum ceiling specified in the agreements they have made with the federal government. Generally I hope that since the wording in this act is the same, likewise the maximum ceiling will be uniform across the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So do I.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Having said that, may I express my appreciation of what I take to be the spirit of 7 (d) (ii), (iii) and (iv). These clauses, I take it, are aimed at making it quite definite that Canadians can move about from one province to the other without losing their pension rights. What would be the situation in the case of pensioners under this act making a short visit, we will say, outside the country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are allowed sixty days out of the country in a year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a matter of regulation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The expectation is that they will be allowed the same time as the regulation that applies to the present Old Age Pensions Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the expectation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of my friends behind me ask whether it is sixty days or ninety days; I believe ninety is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is ninety, I am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. Under this section 7 there is (d) (x), which is the clause that


deals with the question of recoveries from the estates of deceased pensioners. This of course is the clause that represents one of the-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I anticipate the question? We do not intend to encourage any province to do so. The reason it is in that way is that there may be a disposition on the part of a province-I am not saying what province; I am not saying any province, but a province-knowing that the federal government would not in the event of recovery get 50 per cent, there may be an encouragement for that province to go and get the whole amount. My hon. friend will realize what sort of provision it is. At the same time that was put in at the insistence of one of the most experienced of the premiers of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all enjoying the way in which the minister is anticipating some of the questions from this side of the house this afternoon. He has anticipated one question I intended to ask with respect to this subclause, and I am very glad that the government is giving a lead under the terms of the act. The statement of the minister makes it clear that the federal government does not want to make any recoveries, and I hope that the provinces will follow that lead. My other question is this. I hope the minister will not say that this matter has to wait until the fall, because it is a matter that is of concern to many pensioners right now. What will be the situation with respect to liens on the property of persons now seventy and over?	.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is entirely a provincial matter. There are no federal liens whatsoever. That also is a matter to discuss when we meet the provinces, but we do not have any liens at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. There are no federal liens whatsoever, but the liens placed by the provinces have been placed there because the federal government's act required an undertaking on the part of the provinces that liens would be authorized. *


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I must say that is not the case. Any liens that have been put on have not been put on in any way at the insistence of the federal authority.


Jean Lesage: The provinces were free. Some were putting on liens, and some were not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me read section 9 (2) of the present act.
An agreement made pursuant to section three of this act shall include an undertaking by the province that the pension authority will be authorized

to recover out of the estate of any deceased pensioner, as a debt due by the pensioner, the sum of the pension payments-
And so on. Then there are certain details from there down.


Jean Lesage: Where is the lien? There is no question of a lien there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No lien principle is involved there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The question as to what
amounts of liens are imposed comes under the regulations?


Jean Lesage: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; we have nothing whatever to do with liens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. I have used the wrong term; I should have talked about recoveries. I accept the statement that the federal government has nothing to do with the actual filing of liens, but the federal government has required this undertaking by the provinces to recover certain moneys out of the estate of the deceased.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, that is another matter. We have amended that particular section. We are not going to insist upon recoveries at all, but if the province does, as my hon. friend knows, we will insist on our share, and I have given the reason for that. The lien is a right exercised by the provincial authority under its exclusive competent jurisdiction of property and civil rights.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been confused a bit over language. But I think the minister and I both know what we are talking about. I accept the statement with regard to the bill now before us that the federal government does not want any recoveries out of the estates of those who go on the old age assistance for those from 65 to 69. I accept also the statement with respect to the present Old Age Pensions Act that the federal government has nothing to say about liens, but under section 9 (2) an undertaking is required from the provinces that they will authorize the recovery out of the estate of the pensioners of certain amounts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I was saying three minutes ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You were using the word "lien".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I was using the word "lien" instead of "recovery".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understand now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister did then. Under that provision in the present
Old Age Assistance Act act the provinces in some cases at the present time are making recoveries. Some people who are today receiving the old age pension wonder what will happen to their property when they go on the universal pension in January. Will they be treated exactly the same as people who will go on the new universal pension starting in January?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a matter that will have to be decided in the future. I cannot decide it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister is personally favourable to seeing to it that the same attitude applies there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will have that discussion when the board meets.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Payments out of consolidated revenue fund.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a provision that all sums payable to the provinces shall come out of the consolidated revenue fund. This afternoon the Minister of Finance tabled certain supplementary estimates and, while we have not yet seen them, I presume he has made provision in them for payment under this bill for the first three months of 1952.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. They will be presented in October, or whenever we meet in the fall.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister anything more to tell us about methods to be followed in the raising of the money?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, not at this stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it the thought of the government to give consideration to that question, along with consideration of the means by which the funds to pay the universal pension at 70 and over will be raised?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or are they two entirely independent things?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are two separate funds, as I said this morning. This comes out of the consolidated revenue fund and will not in any way affect the other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it anticipated that the regulations respecting the pension for those 65 to 69 will be substantially the same as those now applying to pensioners over 70? At least will the minister say this, that so far as he has anything to do with it the regulations will be at least as generous as they now are.

Old Age Assistance Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be a safe assumption.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question with respect to one particular regulation that I know is there, one that was made anew in 1947. In that year the board that drafts these regulations brought in a new one that provided that persons who were away from Canada for many years-and this would include missionaries-but who returned to their homes in Canada to retire, were to be treated as having had residence in this country. Will regulations of that type be carried forward with respect to pensions paid to those from 65 to 69?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want to see a change in them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two paints upon which I wish to ask questions. First of all, with respect to subsection 1 (e), the provision for regulations with respect to the definition of income: What type of regulations are in contemplation? And then, with respect to paragraph (h)-what is in mind with respect to that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Pretty much along the lines of the present one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No new departure?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Subject of course to the views of the provinces when we meet in July.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And with respect to paragraph (h)-what is in contemplation with respect to payments by way of assistance in regard to persons confined to asylums?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This paragraph could cover patients in mental institutions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been difficulty about that in the past, as the minister knows, respecting persons who are inmates of asylums and government hospitals. What is in contemplation with respect to this matter, in the new bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is going to be discussed with the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Cannot the minister throw any light upon it at all?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think it would be fair if I were to say something that might embarrass the provinces. I could put them on the spot, but I do not want to take that kind of attitude. It will be a matter for discussion, and when it is decided I will give the house the story.


Ernest George Hansell: Paragraph (j) refers to the recovery of the amount of assistance payments to which a recipient was not entitled under the act, the regulation and the agreement. I believe that a decision made must be made on the basis of whether a pensioner


is at fault. If a mistake has been made and the recipient has received more than he should have received, and if such mistake has been made by the pension authorities, I do not believe recovery should be made. It works a tremendous hardship on old people. They will have received certain amounts. Those amounts will have been spent- because they have to spend every nickel they get. If afterwards it is discovered that a mistake has been made by the authorities, then for the next year the recipient will be penalized, If it were a matter of the recipient giving false information it would be different; but if the fault is in administration, then I suggest that the amount should not be recovered. Would the minister comment on that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I can say any more than that when we meet the provinces the matter will be discussed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question on section 11 (3). The present Old Age Pensions Act does not provide for the composition of the advisory board. May I ask if the composition set out in the new bill is substantially the same as what is now in practice?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Precisely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would point out that there is a similar subsection in the Blind Persons Act, which we will have before us later today. Actually at the present time one board is dealing with both matters. Is it intended to have two boards, or would the same persons be appointed to both?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be up to the provinces, but I do not think we should have two boards.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to thank the house for its consideration of this matter. We will go on with the Blind Persons Act at 8.20.
At 6.20 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8.20 o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: the second reading of Bill No. 396, to provide for allowances for blind persons.

He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this measure I believe I should make a brief statement in connection with the second reading. Apart from the large number of those now receiving pensions who will benefit from the more generous provisions of this measure, an additional 2,000 to 3,000 blind persons will for the first time receive benefits, either under this measure or under the old age security act. It is noteworthy that for the first time under this bill blind people of our country will have separate legislation of their own quite independent of that respecting our aged citizens. I think this bill will be welcomed by all who have urged the enactment of separate legislation for the blind and a different name for the benefits payable to them. On both counts the government has accepted the recommendations of the six-point program put forward in 1947 by the Canadian Council of the Blind, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and other individuals and organizations working in this field.
Examination of their program shows that the government in this measure or otherwise is implementing, either wholly or in part, each of the recommendations made, as follows:
1.	Separate legislation is provided for the blind under the title recommended, "the Blind Persons Act."
2.	The term "pension for blind persons" has been abolished in favour of "blindness allowance."
3.	The amount of the blindness allowance is in accordance with that recommended in the six-point program of 1947.
4.	The residence qualification is drastically reduced.
5.	The income ceilings have been greatly liberalized.
6.	While not provided for in this bill, a good deal of progress has been made in recent years in making medical treatment available for the blind.
Under the bill presently before us we are now taking an important additional step in the further liberalization of the test of eligibility for the blindness allowance by raising the income ceilings by an additional $120 a year.
Income ceilings in this Blind Persons Act, as compared with those in effect prior to 1947, will be higher by the following amounts:
Increase
For a single person, raised from $500 to $840 $340
For a single person with dependents, raised
from $700 to $1,040	 340
For a married couple, one of whom is blind,
raised from $925 to $1,320	 395
For a blind couple, raised from $1,000 to $1,440	440
Blind Persons Act
The payment of allowances to blind persons from 21 to 69 is, of course, a matter of joint federal-provincial concern. We have gone as far as any of the provinces expressed a desire to go at the federal-provincial conference on May 23 and 24 in the direction of liberalizing the test of eligibility to be applied under the Blind Persons Act. As I have said, a major forward step has been taken in reducing the residence requirement from 20 years in the existing act to 10 years in the new measure. This will make a significant number of persons eligible for these allowances who at present have insufficient residence.
For some years now we have included in our departmental estimates, under the blindness control division, an appropriation for the purpose of defraying 75 per cent of the cost of surgical expenses incurred in connection with eye operations on selected blind pensioners. A number of the provinces have taken advantage of this provision and have contributed 25 per cent of the surgical costs involved. In 50 per cent of the cases dealt with to date vision has been successfully restored and the pensioners have been able to give up their pension and return to normal life in the community. This, I believe, is very satisfactory progress. This program holds considerable promise for the future. We propose to continue and expand it to the extent that the provinces co-operate.
I may add also that a great deal has been done under the national health program to help combat the problem of blindness. Glaucoma clinics have been established in Toronto, Montreal and Quebec city, where research and treatment are being carried out. We look forward to satisfactory developments from this experiment which is being put forward by some of the provinces and acted upon in relation to the number I have indicated.
As members of the house are aware, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind does a great deal of work in the treatment, training and rehabilitation of the blind. In recognition of this, the government, a year or so ago, increased its grant to the institute from $18,000 to $45,000 and increased its grants to a number of other organizations carrying out similar functions.
We are pressing forward vigorously with new programs in this important field and urging upon the provinces that they should take the fullest possible advantage of funds available under the national health program to develop whatever additional undertakings commend themselves to the provincial health authorities.

Blind Persons Act
Most of the new features of the old age assistance legislation to which I have referred in an earlier debate are applicable also to the present legislation. Indians will henceforth be treated on exactly the same basis as other persons under this federal law and will be equally entitled to all its benefits.
Recoveries from estates will no longer be required under federal legislation. It will be left to each province to decide whether it wishes to continue this practice under provincial law. Under the new bill, in the event of a blind person's death, the allowance may be paid for the full month in which the recipient dies. In other respects as well, this legislation has been rearranged and brought up to date in conformity with the Old Age Assistance Act.
The house will have noted, I am sure, thax the two pieces of legislation parallel each other closely, many of the sections of both bills having almost identical wording. There are, however, three important points of difference between these measures, in addition to those which I have already mentioned.
Since we will be continuing to make payments under this new act to essentially the same persons who are now receiving blind pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, and since the basis of sharing the present costs of blind pensions is 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial, it has been considered advisable to make no alteration in this respect.
There is no provision in section 7 of this bill corresponding to section 7 (a) of the Old Age Assistance Act permitting the provinces to decide upon a different age of eligibility from that prescribed in the federal act or to lay down other special conditions of eligibility. Uniformity is essential in the Blind Persons Act so that nothing is done to jeopardize the rights of any persons now receiving blind pensions.
Section 13 of the bill is an important one. It is designed to ensure the continuation under all conceivable circumstances of the benefits of the present old age pensions legislation as they affect blind persons, regardless of any action that may or may not be taken by the provinces.
On November 30, 1950, the total number of blind persons in Canada was found to be 18,262. When account is taken of the coverage provided under the Blind Persons Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the old age security act, the War-Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act for veterans, family allowances, the provincial workmen's compensation and mothers' allowance laws and other legislation, it will be found that the blind

population of Canada will be assisted to a degree and an extent not surpassed by any country in the world.
Of the 11,540 blind persons between 21 and 69 in November last, no fewer than 7,238 persons were in receipt of blind pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act. On January 1, 1952, they will be entitled to receive the extra benefits of the Blind Persons Act and will be covered by the more generous provisions of its modified eligibility test.
Then, in addition to this group, when the old age security act comes into effect on January 1 next approximately 6,000 blind persons aged 70 and over will automatically become eligible for the universal pension, free of the means test.
These two acts alone will provide next year benefits for almost 15,000 of the 19,000 blind persons in Canada.
Of the 4,302 blind individuals as of November 30 last who were not in receipt of pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 276 were receiving war veterans blind pension; 187 were receiving benefits under workmen's compensation; and others were receiving assistance under mothers' allowances, family allowances and other measures.
Of the remainder, a certain number will now become eligible under the reduced ten years' residence clause. The others, for the most part, have means of their own, are engaged in full-time employment, or are the wives, husbands or relatives of sighted persons who are able to provide for themselves.
For fifteen years, since allowances for the blind were first introduced in 1936, they have occupied a relatively obscure but nevertheless important place in our Old Age Pensions Act. Now, for the first time, with the concurrence of this parliament, they can receive their proper recognition, with a status and standing of their own. Every Canadian can feel proud that through this measure he is doing something to help those of his fellow citizens who bear this heavy handicap.
In time we can hope that medical science will prevent more people from losing their sight. We can be confident that new drugs and new skills will be developed to lead others back from the unending night of blindness, but those Canadians who are now without the faculty of sight and those who will lose it in the years ahead will continue to command our warm admiration. They can be sure of our unfailing support.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to commend this bill, and I am sure that it will receive not only the unanimous, but the hearty support of all members of the house.

One is very glad indeed to see at last that provision for allowances for blind persons is being made in a statute separate and apart from the statute which provides allowances or pensions to persons by reason of old age. There are historical reasons why the two groups were included in the one act, the joint dominion-provincial scheme applicable to the two groups being similar. But the time has long since been reached when separate statutes should be set up to provide independently for the two groups, and the departures which are being taken at this session and in the fall session, in the light of the report of last year's special committee of both houses on old age security, have made this a most opportune time for the introduction of a separate bill dealing with allowances for blind persons.
The various points which the minister has mentioned in connection with the bill are, I think, in every case points that will receive endorsement on the part of members of the house. One is especially glad to see more generosity being displayed with respect to the supplemental income which persons are, under this act, entitled to receive before losing anything of the permissible allowance. The courage and the independence which so many persons who suffer from the handicap of blindness show day by day are a challenge to all of us who have the blessing of sight. 1 particularly like the feature of the bill which is going to raise the maximum limits of permissible supplemental income because those who have been leading the cause of our blind persons and seeking assistance for them in the kind of measure we have before us have at all times laid the greatest possible emphasis upon encouraging our blind citizens to help themselves.
I think the provision, as far as it goes, made for increasing the maxima of permissible income is in line with the efforts of those who have been seeking, both in parliament and outside, to educate the public in the most helpful way of bringing assistance to those who suffer this handicap. They do. not ask for charity, and they never have. They simply ask for understanding and a limited form of assistance which will enable them with their own efforts to make their own way in life. I think the emphasis which the minister has properly laid upon the increases in permissible income is entirely well directed and will commend itself to the judgment of the house.
Fifteen years have passed since the first measure of public assistance to blind persons on the part of the federal authority was inaugurated. The step that is in the process
Blind Persons Act
of being taken in this house tonight is altogether commendable, and an important step forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say that the bill is a most welcome and acceptable one. The things that it does are highly desirable and I am sure will meet with the unanimous approval of the house. The main thing that it does of course is to put our legislation respecting the blind in a separate statute. In point of fact it does two or three other things that are of substance. It reduces the residence requirement in the case of the blind from twenty years, as it has been in the statute, to a period of ten years. It also, as with the Old Age Assistance Act that we dealt with earlier today, does away with recoveries from estates. I realize there is still the possibility for recoveries to be made if the provinces exercise that right, but the wording of the act would actually seem to discourage the provinces from pursuing that practice. It also slightly liberalizes the other income that blind persons are allowed to earn.
For all three of these points of substance I am sure there will be deep appreciation on the part of those interested in the welfare of the blind, as indeed it will be welcomed that we are now to have a separate statute for our blind persons. Having said that, I feel I cannot let what the minister said tonight go by without drawing attention to the way in which he sought to claim, at least by inference, more for the bill now before us than is actually to be effected by its terms.
The minister read off very quickly a list of figures comparing the income ceilings provided for in this bill with those respecting blind pensioners that were in effect prior to 1947. It is perfectly legitimate for the minister to put it in that way if he wishes to do so, but I think he should tell the whole story, and not try to give a wrong impression. He pointed out that prior to 1947 the ceiling for single blind persons was $500 and that this bill would make it $840, an increase of $340. He said that for a single blind person with dependents the ceiling prior to 1947 was $700 and that it will now be $1,040, an increase of $340. With respect to a married blind person living with a sighted spouse he said the income ceiling prior to 1947 was $925 and that it will now be $1,320, or an increase of $395. And he said that in the case of a married couple both blind the income ceiling prior to 1947 was $1,000 and that it will now be $1,440, an increase of $440.
Frankly, I was disappointed that the minister did not point out that he was

Blind, Persons Act
making a comparison with something that does not now obtain. At the present time the ceilings for these four categories are not the pre-1947 figures he gave. Rather, those ceilings are $720, $920, $1,200, and $1,320. Those income ceilings have been in effect since the act was amended in 1947. In other words the change in the other allowable income being provided by the bill now before us is only $120 in each case, and I object strongly to the minister suggesting that the legislation now being presented to parliament makes increases in other allowable income as substantial as those he placed upon Hansard. The actual increase for each category is only $120. As the minister was describing the various benefits provided under the act he referred to this as the modified eligibility test. You do not change the means test to something else simply by changing its name. It is true that the means test has been slightly relaxed in the case of blind people as in the case of those coming under old age assistance, but only to the extent of $10 a month. I welcome that change; I am glad we have that relaxation in the means test; but let us not try to kidi ourselves or anybody else into thinking we have got rid of the means test because we call it a modified eligibility test.
I was a little startled also at the way the minister sought to suggest that all the things to be done for our blind persons after this bill passes are the result of this bill. It makes quite a picture when the minister lines up the assistance provided under the War Veterans Allowance Act, under the Pension Act, under the Family Allowances Act, under the compensation laws of the provinces and all the rest of it. But though it is quite a picture it is certainly unfair- indeed it is misleading-to suggest that all this is being done by the bill now before us.


James Sinclair: It has been, done by the Liberals.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why bring in that partisan nonsense?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Through the Minister of National Health and Welfare the Liberals are demonstrating again how they try to get away with these exaggerated statements. The plain fact of the matter is that the only changes of substance being effected by this legislation are the three I have indicated, plus the fact that we are getting separate legislation for the blind.


Mr. Gibson:: That is good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Absolutely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want my hon. friend to think I had tried to give, either to the house or to the country, an impression
fMr. Knowles.]
which really was not justified by the bill.
I thought I had clearly explained that the blind had an additional allowance of $120. If I did not explain it properly it was not because of any desire to exaggerate the importance of this measure. I was simply seeking to tell the house and the country what we were doing, and nothing more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All the applause the Liberals may give that statement will not alter the fact that the minister placed on the record a set of figures which left the impression that much larger increases in other allowable income were now being effected than is actually the case under this bill. As I said a moment ago I heartily welcome having our. blind legislation in a separate statute, and I heartily welcome the three changes of substance set out in this bill. But let the government not try to claim that more than this is being done at this time. They can take credit if it means anything to them for what has been done in the past, for what has been done by provincial governments and by other organizations, including private groups working for the blind. But let the minister be fair in presenting a bill like this and claim for it only what it actually does.
There is something not in this bill, and I say quite frankly I am sorry it is not here. I realize that this legislation has come about as a consequence of the changes that have been made in the old age pension legislation. In view of those changes; in view of the federal government paying 100 per cent of the pensions to those 70 and over; in view of the government undertaking to pay 50 per cent of the pensions to those 65 to 69; it was necessary to have a separate act for the blind in order to continue the 75-25 relationship, and also because blind persons receive their allowances starting at the age of 21.
In spite of all that, however, this bill deals with little but the three changes in substance to which I have just referred. It does not deal with a very important matter that is of great concern to the blind. I believe Canadians from coast to coast would agree that the least our modern society should do for these people would be to give them this allowance without any means test at all. The minister referred to the various requests of the blind organizations which had been met, some of them rather small such as changing the name of the pension to an allowance and putting their legislation in a separate statute. He said nothing, for example, about the request of the Canadian federation of the blind in a letter addressed to him on June 20 of this year, copies of which I take it have been

sent to all members of parliament, that the means test be abolished altogether as far as the blind are concerned. The very figures the minister gave tonight as to the assistance blind persons get under several different statutes, showing that a very large proportion of our blind persons qualify for assistance of one kind or another, make clear how simple and relatively inexpensive it would be to go the whole way and give all our blind persons 21 years and up, since that is the age now in the statute, the blindness allowance free of a means test.
I was interested, as I am sure other hon. members were, in an editorial on this matter in Thursday's issue of the Ottawa Citizen, in which the writer estimated that it would cost only a little more than $3 million annually in addition to what we are now spending to do this for these people who live their lives, as the minister said, in the blackness of a long night. I am satisfied any Canadian you could approach would say we should do that, and I hope the day is not far distant when we will go that further step and provide this blindness allowance completely free of any means test.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to make any extended remarks on this bill, Mr. Speaker, because if I said what was on my mind I would simply repeat what I said this afternoon on the other bill. This bill is an improvement and will be welcomed. It may not be all that we would like to see brought in for the blind, but it is at least a step in the right direction. We favour it. I shall just repeat this to reinforce the arguments I put forward this afternoon concerning the incurables in Canada. The blind can be classed as incurable, and therefore in respect to the blind this is a commendable piece of legislation. Now, how about the others who are incurable, but who perhaps are not blind. They may be just as unfortunate in other respects as those who are blind. I hope and trust that the day is not far distant when other incurables are written into some such act as this.
There is a difference between the two types of incurables. We do have the blind. It is a very unfortunate position for them to be in. While they may be blind, they may otherwise be very healthy people. You may have, on the other hand, incurables who have their sight but they may be bedridden. They may be wheel chair patients. From a financial point of view they may be in a far more serious position than some of the blind, yet there is no legislation covering them. I am not making a comparison between the two unfortunate classes of people. I suppose if
Blind Persons Act
most of us had our choice as to whether to be a wheel chair case or blind, we would prefer to be a wheel chair case. Perhaps there is nothing more unfortunate than blindness. The legislation is commendable and we are not going to criticize it. It is an improvement, but I do hope and trust that some action will be taken in respect of legislation for other incurables.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Stanfield:: I should like to ask the
minister just how blind a person has to be in order to qualify for the blind pension?


John Lambert Gibson: He has to be a Tory.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or a Liberal who calls himself an independent.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: I know of one case in particular where a man was blind in one eye and had only 20 per cent sight in the other. They would not give him the blind pension. I have known of other individuals who were nearly as bad, and when they came before the board they were told they could not qualify for the pension. I do not know whether it was for political reasons or not, but it always seemed rather peculiar to me. Will the minister state how blind a person has to be before he can get the pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The provision as to the extent of blindness is covered by regulation 28. The regulation states:
An applicant or other person shall be deemed to be blind only when the visual acuity of such applicant or other person, after correction through the use of proper refractive lens, is not more than 6/60 Snellen or the field of vision in each eye is reduced to less than ten degrees.
The result is that a person who has more than 10 per cent vision would not be able to qualify. This is the standard of measurement.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Since blindness is such a terrible affliction, I believe the department should be a little lenient to a person who has only 10 per cent sight. After all, a man who has only 10 per cent sight cannot carry on with his work. Really, for the few cases that there must be within this narrow margin, the department should be more considerate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I quite appreciate the hon. member's sympathy, but he will appreciate the validity of our position when I tell him that the standard we use is the standard that is recognized by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and by oculists and others. It is a standard that is applied noonly in this country but in others.

Blind Persons Act


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, none are so blind as those who will not see. At this time I want to pay some tribute to the school for the blind at Brantford, Ontario. I believe the hon. the Speaker of this house represents that riding. I just wanted to say that in all the activities of the institute for the blind at Brantford, he has taken a personal interest, and his good lady also, in the welfare of the students who are there. I have quite an interest in it because some of our people from British Columbia go to Brantford, and men like Mr. Valentine, the principal of the institute, and his very capable staff help these people. I do not know of any work more commendable than that of bringing light into the minds of these persons who are supposed to be blind. I hope you will not falter, Mr. Chairman, in placing a supply of money behind this very worthy enterprise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Ernest George Hansell: May I ask the minister if, under this act, the regulations respecting liens on property or estates is the same as the position explained by the minister this afternoon in respect to the bill we passed before six o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question the hon. member raises does not come under this section, but to deal with the matter unequivocally, may I say that there are no liens put on any property in such instances by the federal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But recoveries have been required because of legislation of the federal government, but that is being done away with by this bill. Why does the minister not point that out? The change is being made word for word as it was in the Old Age Assistance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I answered the question.


Ernest George Hansell: The position in this legislation is the same as the minister described this afternoon with respect to the other bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have a question with respect to section 2 (d) which defines dependent, and takes it up to the age of 21 years, who by reason of physical or mental incapacity is prevented from earning a livelihood. What about those over 21 years of age who are prevented from earning a livelihood for the same reason?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The definition is the same as in the present act.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the definition is the same.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As in the present Old Age Pensions Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been a few minor changes in the wording, but the definition is the same.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What has been the practice in the past? What about those who have incapacitated children beyond the age of 21 years?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no difference.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do they get an allowance for them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They do not get it, but there is no difference in the present situation. What my hon. friend is likely confused by is that there is a slight change of the wording, but it does not alter the meaning. It is just a cleaner way of putting what was there before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Agreements with provinces.
Solon Earl Low: Can the minister tell the committee whether or not any substantial number of the provinces requested abolition of the means test in this legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not one single province.


Solon Earl Low: This bill, as in the case of the one passed this afternoon, represents agreement on the part of the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; this legislation provides for action along such lines and as far as any province asked us to go.


Solon Earl Low: Is it correct that the abolition of the means test in this legislation probably would necessitate an increased cost of something like $3 million on all the governments concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be a rough figure. I would not want to give an exact figure, but it would certainly be that.


Solon Earl Low: Was the matter of total cost and perhaps enforcement among the provinces and the dominion discussed fully at the conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, this matter was viewed in the totality of all things that would have to be done by the two senior levels of government.


Solon Earl Low: If the provinces had requested the abolition of the means test in this legislation would the federal government have acceded to it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very hypothetical question which I would have to examine with greater care than I can do at the moment It is difficult enough to declare policy abou'

something that you are going to do without having to deal with situations that are purely hypothetical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First, may I say that we all welcome the change in section 3 (2) (a) (iii), namely, the reduction of the residence requirement to ten years. With respect to another part of section 3, may I ask if the matter of these income ceilings was discussed with the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will not say that the exact amounts were, but we have gone as far as any province has asked us to go. I am sure that in some instances we have gone a little farther than some provinces expected us to go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that again the figures that are being carried forward in this legislation are the result of an accident that is parallel to the accident that provided the basis for the corresponding figures in the Old Age Assistance Act. We have in this legislation the same figures category by category that were established in the Old Age Pensions Act of 1947, plus $120 across the board. I want to point out again that I felt very pleased in 1947 with the evidence that the government had given conscious thought to the various income ceilings; and those ceilings had been arrived at in relation to the amount of pensions that were to be paid; but with the change in 1949, and again with the change now, there appears to have been no attempt to relate the ceilings to the amount of the pensions to be paid. I wish that had been done in this legislation as well as in the old age assistance legislation. However, apart from the question of how anomalous these things can be, I am at least glad to know that in this case a married blind couple is permitted slightly more other income than a single blind person. It works out to $30 a month other income allowed to a single blind person, and $40 a month other income allowed a married blind couple. To me these amounts are not sufficient in the case of blind persons, but at least I am glad there is that slightly greater amount allowed to a married blind couple.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Regulations.
Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, just a word
about the definition of the blind people. There are people who are not totally blind, but who barely see. They cannot read; they cannot work; they need somebody to accompany them on the street. It seems to me that in these cases the government of Canada
Blind Persons Act
and the governments of the provinces should be broad enough to include those who do not see well enough to walk on the street alone, or to do something by themselves. They make a distinction only between light and darkness. My hon. friend knows there are cases like that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has brought
some of these cases to my department.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, many of them. I am
not going to bring the files that I have here tonight as I did last night, or yesterday afternoon, but I have numerous files, and I am glad that the minister reminds me of that. When he discusses the matter with the provinces I hope he will bring these cases to the attention of the provinces. Moreover, I would be delighted to lend my files to him so that he may have them summarized by somebody in the department and give a summary of those files to each one of the representatives of the provinces when he meets them to discuss the matter with them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Repeal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 13 has a very
interesting saving clause. I understand that the reason for this saving clause is so that in case any province is not prepared to sign agreements under the provisions of this new act the agreements now in effect with that province will continue to have effect. From his discussion with the provinces does the minister feel that this saving clause is really necessary? Does he anticipate that any province will not go along with the provisions of the new act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not anticipate, but I try to cover every possible situation that could theoretically arise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I
take this opportunity to thank the house for its careful consideration of this matter. I have already paid my thanks to the committee for the work it has done, and I would express my thanks again to the committee on behalf of the government.
As Minister of National Health and Welfare I noted with great satisfaction the tributes paid to the officers of the department and those others, notably from the Department of Finance and the Department

Federal District Commission Act of Labour, who assisted and who collaborated in the preparation of these measures.
Special mention was made of my deputy minister on the welfare side. I wish to say how much I appreciate the references made to him. He certainly is deserving of them. He has made a great contribution to our country in this particular matter, just as we would expect, in keeping with the high traditions of our public service.


Jean-François Pouliot: Birthday greetings from the
whole house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Paul Joseph James Martin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 397, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Federal district commission.
Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, we have very little opportunity in the House of Commons to talk about the federal district commission, and the work being carried on by that body and the national capital planning committee. I think it is unfortunate indeed that there is not more opportunity, because I think members as a whole are not familiar with the work being carried on in Ottawa and the adjoining district.
I would make the suggestion now that once every four or five years the officers of the federal district commission should come before either the committee on banking and commerce, the public accounts committee or some other body, and explain the work being carried on by the commission, so that hon. members may be informed in more detail as to future plans to be carried out.
This bill contains only a few amendments to be incorporated in the act. However, it stands as another example of a series of amendments to an act that I suggest should be revised, because this is the sixth time since 1927 the Federal District Commission Act has

been amended. It is clear that over a number of those years the work of the commission has changed. New plans have been proposed and new burdens placed on the shoulders of those who administer the act.
From time to time the commission has found that it did not have the powers necessary to carry out the duties given to it. In the present instance we are dealing with railways. However, I believe there will be a question connected with the industrial area. As hon. members know, the federal district commission has acquired huge tracts of land for the specific purposes of the act, mainly for parks, roadways and similar facilities around the Ottawa area. However, owing to the recommendations of the national capital planning committee, it is now necessary to consider certain arrangements which have been made with the railways, the city and the municipalities as to the provision of industrial and railway sites. To carry out these duties the federal district commission is finding from time to time that it has not the power to do certain things.
Although by virtue of the provisions of the Expropriation Act the commission has power to buy lands and to expropriate lands for park purposes, it did not have powers for certain other purposes. I understand the commission has had to resort to the device of having the Department of Public Works expropriate certain lands, which in turn will be turned over to the federal district commission for its purposes. This was done because the federal district commission could not acquire or purchase lands for railway and industrial sites. That is an unfortunate situation.
I think all hon. members would be anxious that the commission should have the proper powers to carry out the responsibilities given by parliament. I for one will welcome the day when this act is completely revised.
I should like to say a few words about the acquisition of land. I have had some experience in the operation of the Expropriation Act in acquiring lands for the Department of Public Works and for the federal district commission, and my experience leads me to believe that the Expropriation Act is another act which requires revision. It is an old one, having been used in the exchequer court and the supreme court for years and years. Judgments from those courts have been turned over from court to court, to the point where, although I do not say the Expropriation Act does not give justice, I feel it does not give to the party whose property is being expropriated just what parliament through its legislators would have given, had the circumstances been known.

In present circumstances, when properties are expropriated the law as it was set out in the Expropriation Act is rigidly applied. In this district the homes built along the Ottawa river and the Rideau river have been suddenly expropriated, and the order has been given for their removal. Up to the moment they have not been removed. I must add that the owners have been treated kindly; the terms with respect to their remaining in their homes have been fair, and the officers have been as considerate as they could be; but they are continually threatened by the provisions of the Expropriation Act in so far as the prices they are ultimately to be paid for their properties are concerned.
Under that act there is nothing to be given to these persons, in the sense that the average person would expect. The Expropriation Act says that the value to be given is the actual value of the property at the time of expropriation. All of a sudden a person who built his house fifteen years ago finds that it is to be expropriated, and feels that there is injustice in the fact that he must accept the so-called actual value, and at the same time have to move four or five miles outside Ottawa where there are no local improvements, no water and no sewers. These people are confronted with the necessity of having to build houses which will cost twice as much as they paid for the houses being expropriated. The person in question is not paid anything for displacement. Value is placed on nothing but the actual market value of the house as it stands.
In many cases this is a hardship. The difficulty does not lie with the officers of the federal district commission, or in any suggestion that they have been unfair in their treatment of the people concerned. On the contrary they have left those people where they were in most places, with the promise that they may remain for five years. But the problem would arise in five years' time as to where they shall go. By that time new homes will cost much more than they get through the exchequer court. Furthermore the owner of a house worth $12,000 cannot afford to go to the exchequer court. I just want to bring this matter to the attention of the committee and through the committee to the attention of the Prime Minister, as I have done before. I think it is time that some revision was made in the method of settlement for expropriation proceedings in order that the hundreds and hundreds of people who are faced with these proceedings may be treated more fairly.
The membership of the federal district commission is rather large today and the commission is kept quite busy. Certain rela-
Federal District Commission Act tionships must exist between the federal district commission and the municipalities that compose the national capital area. There should be some body to act as a liaison. I should like to end these few remarks by saying that we in this district have the greatest appreciation of the fine work being done by the federal district commission.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, as one who comes from the upper reaches of our great Canada may I say just a word at this time. As a youth I happened to be in Ottawa when Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposed to build here the Washington of the north. I am amazed that in the interval there have been allowed to be created conditions which make this capital of our great country a place of confusion rather than a place where our aspirations and hopes and ideals can be joined in harmony.
Coming as I do from a more remote area of Canada, I want to see here a city beautiful, a city such as was envisaged by Mackenzie King in his day. I like to wake up in the morning with thoughts of the Peace river country, of the Fraser valley, of the Okanagan or the valleys of Nova Scotia, but I find that I wake up in the morning filled with nausea because of the sulphurous miasma from Hull. That is much against the interest of good government in this country.
We have sulphide mills and paper mills, but they should have their place. Each of us has his place. God does not create any person or any object that does not have a proper place. It is a bad thing to take a sulphurous mess like that and project it into the heart of the government of Canada. I knew the late E. B. Eddy who founded the industry over here. In his day he did great work as we are now doing up in the Peace river and elsewhere. But time marches on, and as time marches on these places should take their proper places with respect to the great objectives of the nation.
I was up at Kingsmere the other day with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River to pay a tribute at that little cottage where Mr. Mackenzie King lived for so many years. Some of us are rich, some of us are poor, but we all looked upon Mr. Mackenzie King as a great statesman, a man of great heart, and of course power and opportunity. We went out to Kingsmere and saw the humble cottage in which he lived, where he dreamed his dreams and where he wrote out his scheme for Canada. The hon. member and I drove back to Ottawa and as we approached the city we could see the spires of the churches and the towers of the parliament buildings. It looked like a city beautiful, it looked like something that would inspire.

Federal District Commission Act
I said to the hon. member that that was something that should make for peace and good will among men. But then we turned here and we turned there, we went this way and we went that way; we went through the confusion and through the mess which man had created. Instead of coming to the great spires of a city beautiful when we did get to Ottawa and pulled up in front of the Chateau Laurier we were met with complete confusion. I defy any man in this House of Commons, whether he be a member of the C.C.F., the Social Credit, the Liberal or the Conservative party, to go across that street at right angles.
Some of us here are trappers, some are miners, some are farmers and some are bankers, but we all come to what should be a city beautiful and find it to be a city of great confusion. Is it not time for us to pause and think a while? I have been a reader of the Ottawa Evening Journal for many years and I know that they have their ideas, their hopes and their aspirations. I think it would be a good thing for this House of Commons to make plans in order that this capital of Canada may be a city where ideals can be mingled regardless of our religion or our race, whether we come from the east or the west.
A great city should be built around the Commons of Canada so that people in generations to come will say, "Those people builded well."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: These speeches may be most interesting and it certainly is desirable to avoid confusion, but I think perhaps we would be avoiding confusion if we reminded ourselves that standing order 58, subsection 2, provides that speeches in committee of the whole house must be relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Section 1 provides for increasing the membership of the federal district commission to twenty so that there may be one member appointed to represent the province of Newfoundland, as since 1946 there has been one appointed to represent each of the other nine provinces.
Perhaps to avoid some other possible confusion the law officers have called my attention to the language used in subsection 5 of the new section 3 in which there is only to be one change, the replacing of the word "nine" with the word "ten", and they have indicated that perhaps it is not very clear. It might bear the suggestion that one man was required to be ordinarily resident in ten provinces. If I could have one of my colleagues do so I should like to move that the intended effect be conserved, but that it be


expressed in language less subject to discussion which would be as follows:
The members appointed by the governor in council shall include one member for each province who shall be ordinarily resident in the province for which he is appointed.
If my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be so kind as to move that amendment, I think it would avoid the somewhat inelegant way in which lines 17, 18 and 19 of the bill express what is the intention.


Mr. Gardiner:: I move:
That all the words in lines 17, 18 and 19 on page 1 be struck out and be replaced by the following:
"The members appointed by the governor in council shall include one member for each province who shall be ordinarily resident in the province for which he is appointed."


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is there a mistake in the numbering of these clauses? In the copy at which I am looking there is the figure "3" and then there is clause 1 and then there are * two clause 2's. Is that an error or am I reading it incorrectly?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The first is replacing what is contained in the statute of 1946. Section 3 as enacted by the statute of 1946 has five subsections, and this only repeals two of those subsections, 2 and 5, and replaces them. It looks rather strange in the bill, but section 3 would now read:
3. (1) There shall be a commission to be called the federal district commission, consisting of twenty members.
(2) Eighteen members shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure for a period not exceeding five years.
Then subsection 3 is not touched and reads:
One member shall be appointed by the corporation of the city of Ottawa to hold office during pleasure for such period not exceeding five years as the corporation may by bylaw determine.
Subsection 4 reads:
One member shall be appointed by the corporation of the city of Hull to hold office during pleasure for such period not exceeding five years as the corporation may by bylaw determine.
Then subsection 5, which we are replacing, will read:
The members appointed by the governor in council shall include one member for each province who shall be ordinarily resident in the province for which he is appointed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course I follow that, but it would seem from a reading of the bill that some explanation has been left out with respect to the numbering of the second clause 2.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: One is a subsection of section 3, and then the section 2 is a subsection of section 1 of the bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh yes, I see.


George Matheson Murray: May I with all respect ask that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories be added to the bill?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think in time they will be added because I think in time they will probably acquire provincial status.


George Matheson Murray: Thank you very much.


Mr. Proudfoot:: I have some interest in Bill No. 397 because it affects a part of the county which I represent. X have a great deal of correspondence from people in the municipalities of Onslow South, Onslow North and the village of Quyon with regard to the federal district commission and its members. I find on looking over the list of members of the commission that there are six from Ottawa, one from Hull, two who are named by the cities of Hull and Ottawa, I presume, and nine from the provinces. On looking further into the matter I come to the .national capital planning committee, and there are thirteen members, I believe, including six from Ottawa, two from Hull, two from Toronto, two from Montreal and one from Manitoba. I am not sure as to the last one. Then I find that in the national capital area there are 364 square miles in the province of Ontario and 536 square miles in the province of Quebec. I quite realize that the city of Ottawa, is included in the Ontario area and therefore the population is greater. However, what I am coming to is that I think something should be done for these rural municipalities, not only in the county of Pontiac but also in the counties of Gatineau and Labelle, to provide them with some representation on both of these boards. I do not know whether I am in order, but I would ask that consideration be given to those counties on the Quebec side of the river particularly, inasmuch as I represent the county of Pontiac in Quebec. I suggest that one member of the commission should be from one of the three counties of Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle, and that a representative from each of those counties should be on the capital planning committee that works together with the commission. I would ask that consideration be given to that matter because I think we should have some representation on the commission and on the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Power to construct railways, etc.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the Prime Minister to say a word
23, 1951
Federal District Commission Act about clause 2 which empowers the commission to construct a railway and related facilities. I understand it is a new power.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, it is not a new
power. It is a power that was provided in 1950 by an item of $1 in the estimates which authorized the federal district commission to enter into and carry out a contract with Canadian National Railways to build these railway facilities. It is to be found in the statutes of 1950, and is schedule C to the Appropriation Act, vote No. 725. It is quite long, but it reads as follows:
To authorize entry into and performance of an agreement, including payment of expenditures incurred by the federal district commission thereunder out of the national capital fund, between the federal district commission and the Canadian National Hailway Company to provide, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, that
(a)	the federal district commission will acquire from His Majesty lands now held by His Majesty for the purpose of a railway cutoff line and freight yard in south Ottawa in accordance with the master plan for the national capital district and will construct, at its expense, the requisite railway facilities thereon;
(b)	the federal district commission will grant a right of user in perpetuity over the new facilities to the Canadian National Railway Company in exchange for a conveyance free of charge of lands and facilities now used by the railway company for which the new facilities are to be substituted, such right of user not to exclude use by other railways of the facilities as may be agreed by the commission;
(c)	the federal district commission will reimburse the Canadian National Railway Company for costs incurred by the company by reason of the abandonment of existing facilities and transfer of operations to the new facilities;
(d)	the Canadian National Railway Company, together with any other railway using the new facilities, will operate and maintain the new facilities at their own expense;
and for matters incidental thereto . . .
That was a $1 vote in the supplementary estimates of 1950. It was felt that though it sufficed at that time to authorize the contract which was made and signed on March 30, 1950, as we were amending the Federal District Commission Act it would be more regular to have the statutory power granted by this provision in that act rather than in an appropriation bill. If the hon. member will look at the estimates for this year he will find under item 327 on page 43 the words, "Appropriation not required for 1951-52, $1." There it is indicated that the details are on page 336, and turning to that page we find this note:
To authorize the federal district commission to enter into an agreement with the Canadian National Railway Company respecting rearrangement of railway facilities, $1.

Federal District Commission Act
We felt the criticism that has sometimes been made in this house that legislation of an enduring character should not be provided by votes in the estimates had some validity, though there are occasions when it is convenient to do it in that way. Having to bring a bill before parliament to deal with the federal district commission, however, we felt that it would probably meet the views of parliament if we put this legislation in the statutes relating to the commission and dropped it from the estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I correct in understanding that the vote in the appropriation act to which the Prime Minister has referred was for the purpose of carrying out the construction of a certain piece of line which was required?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then do I understand further that this is really for the purpose of giving unquestioned legal validity to that undertaking?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I would only observe that this appears to be worded in such a broad way that it is almost unlimited.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In 1944 a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was set up to look into this question. At that time they recommended a rearrangement of railway facilities which was carried into the general plan with respect to which I tabled a report in this house some time ago and of which a model is now on display in the lobby. The plan required the removal of certain trackage which comes right into the city, the presence of which has much to do with the confusion in front of the Chateau Laurier to which the hon. member for Cariboo referred a few moments ago.
The federal district commission set up this national capital planning board with a railway subcommittee. Officials of the two railways using the Union station are members of that subcommittee; and with the full co-operation of all those concerned a satisfactory arrangement was worked out under which the federal district commission would acquire an area in Ottawa South and construct trackage facilities on it; then when it was ready, under this agreement the Canadian National Railways would cede to the federal district commission the trackage it was abandoning in the heart of the city and would use that being provided in Ottawa South. It is to give the federal district commission such powers as are necessary under


the Railway Act to carry out that undertaking that this clause has been drawn. The hon. member will see that anything which has to be done under the clause has to get the approval of the board of transport commissioners. It has to comply with the ordinary requirements of the Railway Act in carrying out these powers.
On February 12 I filed the report of the federal district commission for 1950, in which there is a description of what has been done up to the present time. The act requires the commission to file a report each year showing what is being done. It may be desirable at some time-certainly the government would have no objection-to have this report referred to the public accounts committee or to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, or to a select committee, where the officers of the commission could be called as witnesses to familiarize members of the committee and of parliament with what is being done under the act.
I think there is very effective control by parliament over what the commission does, because for each of the last four years parliament has been appropriating into a special fund an amount of $2,500,000, of which most is still unexpended, for carrying out this work by the federal district commission. The members of that commission serve without remuneration in order to be of service to their fellow citizens. Certainly they are very sensitive to any views expressed by parliament as to the proper way for them to earn the gratitude of their fellow Canadians by this devoted service they are performing for the community. So I do not think there need be any anxiety over the fact that the bill does not precisely describe the extent of the operations necessary to bring about this rearrangement of the railway facilities.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the Prime Minister for his clear statement. When he referred to the matter being under the board of transport commissioners do I understand he was referring to section 7A where it says:
In the exercise of the powers granted by this section such provisions of the Railway Act as are susceptible of application thereto shall apply . . .


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I entirely agree with the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the matter be discussed by a committee where members of this house could be heard. I understand that the federal district commission is trying to follow the suggestions of Mr. Greber, the architect, who comes from Paris. In Paris there are many railway stations. There is the Gare du Nord, the Gare de Lyon, and there are others right in the heart of Paris,

which is a beautiful city. In.London there is the same thing. Waterloo'station is right in :the middle of the city, arid there are other stations which are in the middle of the city. Montreal is a beautiful JCity.' [DOT]There is the central station of the Canadian [DOT]National Hallways near the. Windsor,.station of the Canadian Pacific Railway right'in the heart of the city. I do not see Mr. Greber's idea of having the railway station four miles 'from the centre of Ottawa, especially now that 'We 'have diesel engines that make :nor smoke ..and* ate not an inconvenience to the people. It seems to me that the suggestion by Mr. Greber is uncalled for and untimely. It would be most embarrassing for members of parliament Jo catch a train in five or ten minutes as they do now, on account of the traffic.
I do not know how we can beautify the city of Ottawa'by removing the railway from the centre of thedoWn. It is possible to have freight traffic of the railway outside of the city. It makes no difference.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is all there has been provided for at this time. In spite of the apparent good health of my hon. friend and myself, I do, not think we shall live long enough to see the passenger traffic removed from the heart of the city. All we are providing for at the present time is the removal of the freight yards from the position they now occupy.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope the Prime Minister will remain in office long enough to see it is not done.


Mr. Higgins:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the members of the commission get paid for their services?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, they serve without
remuneration. There is the secretary, and there are of course officers employed by the federal district commission, but the members of the commission merely get their travelling expenses for the time they have to come to Ottawa to attend to their duties.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The Prime
Minister spoke a while ago about an agreement with the Canadian National Railways. Are there similar agreements with the Canadian Pacific and the New York Central railways?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The only agreement of
which I know up to the present time is that with the Canadian National Railways, dealing with its freight trackage in the heart of the city.


Jean-Thomas Richard: 
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This act authorizes, of
course after filing the proper plan and upon an examination by the board of transport commissioners, the changing of any railway facilities that might be decided upon in carrying out the general plan.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill
be read a third time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
38.	Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I have a rather important matter to discuss on this item. I shall try to do so as briefly as possible. When we were discussing the administration item the minister was kind enough to intimate that he proposed visiting the province of Newfoundland. He has done that. While he was there he received a very warm welcome. He made an excellent impression, and I believe he had a number of discussions with the farmers. He left them very well satisfied with the ideas he had. On behalf of the farmers I want to say how grateful they are to the minister for that visit. As one of the members from Newfoundland I want to say we are very appreciative of his interest. [DOT]
In connection with one of the statements he made there I want to ask him a question. At a meeting he is reported to have made the following points where federal aid could or would be applied:
On the problems arising in Newfoundland from the high cost of livestock feeds and grain, and Mr. Smallwood's suggestion,, when he introduced the federal minister, that what Newfoundland needed was an elevator, Mr. Gardiner said he thought that Newfoundland was ideally, suited as a province for a grain elevator. We could ship the grain out from Fort Churchill, store it in the grain elevators in

Supply - Agriculture
Newfoundland and then ship it whenever the purchasing country needs it, he said, instead of having heavy charges on it for freight and ice-bound ports to contend with.
He pointed out that the province of Prince Edward Island had been seeking a grain elevator from the federal government and he thought Newfoundland had probably even more reason for one.
I understand all the other provinces except the province of Prince Edward Island have grain elevators. I think that the 'minister really believes it could be of great advantage to Newfoundland. Certainly in the event of an all-out war we possibly could help, with the shipment of flour being restricted. St. John's is an ice-free port for twelve months of the year. I ask the minister to give us some indication of whether he can work with the Minister of Public Works on that important point. The Minister of Public Works knows very well that some of the St. John's members have been kicking because they have not been getting their share, and this would be a good time to give them their share.


James Garfield Gardiner: As is stated in the newspaper item, Mr. Smallwood was introducing me and he brought up these different matters. One of them was the building of an elevator. I stated then, and I know it is understood in the house, that elevators are really under the Department of Trade and Commerce. The proposal which I understand is made in Newfoundland is that some businessman of that city is desirous of building a flour mill in St. John's. Of course it is apparent to anyone that if you are going to have a flour mill in St. John's, so far away from where the wheat fields are, it will be necessary to have an elevator.
I am inclined to think that it would be of advantage to the people of Newfoundland and to the advantage of some of those who have grain to ship, particularly for feed purposes, to have an elevator there. I shall, as I said, make representations to that effect. I am not in a position to have that built, but I shall make the representation.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister will use his influence on the . Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Mr. Charlton:: Will the minister explain the item of $92,278 for publicity and advertising and marketing projects as shown at page 108 of the estimates? What is the amount used for, and just what effect has it had on the marketing of agricultural products?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount which is voted is $100,000, and it is for the advertising of any farm products that we may have difficulty in disposing of. The amount was largely

spent on honey and butter. We had honey in the early part of the season. We also had butter during the early part of the season, and we did do considerable advertising in connection with the marketing of both of these products.


John Alpheus Charlton: Where was the money spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was spent with advertising agencies and others for the purpose of advertising.


John Alpheus Charlton: But where?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister made a statement last night that there were not going to be many products to sell this year outside Canada. I wonder what this $92,000 is going to be used for this year, if we have not many of these products, as he says, to sell.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if there is nothing to advertise, there will not be any of it spent. That is a matter which the Minister of Finance looks after very well. We must have reasons for the amounts that are put in the estimates, and the product which we had in mind at the time that this vote was put in this year was cheese in particular. The province of Ontario has a co-operative organization that has been set up for the purpose of handling cheese in Ontario. The province of Quebec has not a similar organization. There has been some discussion on it but they have not got it up to date. The greater part of the cheese which will be produced in Canada this year we expect will be sold in Canada. The part of Canada in which the greater part of it would be sold, if it is sold in Canada, apart from what is required in Ontario and in Quebec where the big sales naturally are, would be in the western part of Canada. In discussing the matter with the dairy people we have said that we are prepared to co-operate with them in promoting the sale of cheese across Canada. That is the one product that I have in mind at the moment. There are some others in a similar position.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is any of this money spent to subsidize or in any way to aid or to assist cream producers or the federation of dairy farmers of Canada to advertise butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, to advertise. There has been some spent. There has been no grant made directly to them. We have carried on our own advertising program in co-operation with them. They have made requests to us to do certain things in connection with the sale of the product, and we have assisted in it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the advertising done under the Department of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Or under the federated farmers?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the Department of Agriculture.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have never seen an ad yet for butter under the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Have you not seen these ads put up in the stores to the effect that it is better with butter? These were our ads.


John Alpheus Charlton: Was the name of the Department of Agriculture on it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and in all the newspapers across Canada.


Mr. Bryce:: Is any of the money for advertising used to advertise our bacon and cheese and so forth overseas, or is it used entirely in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it has been all done in Canada.


William Scottie Bryce: Does the Department of Trade and Commerce do the advertising overseas?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the Department of Trade and Commerce does the advertising overseas.


Mr. Wright:: Will the Minister of Agriculture use his influence with the Minister of Transport to have a boat built to take this feed grain out of Churchill to the elevator that they are going to build in Newfoundland?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is about as smart as you are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
39.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $4,500,000.
Robert Fair: Can the minister give us a breakdown of the quantities of grain shipped to each province under this vote, and the amount per ton, and the amount given to each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will get the exact figures in a minute. The amount shipped to Ontario and Quebec is about 65 per cent of the total.


Arthur Laing: This is a very important item in the agricultural estimates because I think that up to a certain extent it is making a permanent imprint upon agriculture in the Dominion of Canada. We have by this policy transferred grains from the grain producing areas of Canada to areas where farm labour, farm equipment and farm buildings were available for the production of livestock, meat, poultry, milk and eggs. I think it has been a very wise policy. I notice a considerable reduction is shown in the estimate for
Supply - Agriculture
this year. I hope it is not notice of intention that the policy is to be abandoned, because I would hate to see that happen. I think it is owing to the fact that we count the crop year rather than the fiscal year. We in British Columbia have lately had a further interest in this matter because in the year 1933 there was secured a special Canadian freight association tariff No. 145 applying to grain westbound. I want to give credit for the securing of that tariff in 1933 primarily to Mr. Tom Reid, then member of parliament for the city of New Westminster, today a member of the Senate. He worked very hard and arduously and over a long time for the securing of C.F.A. tariff item 145. It amounts to about $1.50 a ton on the shipment of western grain and was a reduction in the' receipts of the railways. Our' western people have been rather surprised and disappointed at having received a notification from the railways very recently that they were going to cancel C.F.A. tariff item 145, and the only reason they gave is:	"Conditions which
prompted the establishment of those rates in 1933 do not obtain today."
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that this loss of C.F.A. 145 would be absorbed in the federal freight assistance. I think that is correct, at least that is the information that has been given me, but that if C.F.A. were ever dropped then the rates on these grains westbound would be up $1.50 a ton.
I want to compliment the minister on this policy across the years of making western feed grains available to farmers in other parts of Canada. It has made a permanent imprint on agriculture in Canada, and I think it has been sound policy for agriculture in the western provinces as well as for the production of livestock and livestock products in the western province of British Columbia, and also the eastern provinces. It is a splendid policy and I hope it will be continued. I draw to the minister's attention the notice given to western receivers of the cancellation of C.F.A. 145.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I answer these questions before they get too long? The amount which is in the original vote is $4,500,000. That is just to carry us from the end of the fiscal year down to beginning of the next crop year. In the supplementary estimates, which are here before us and which I will be bringing up immediately these estimates are through, is another $10,500,000. That takes care of the next part of the year which is not covered by this vote. At that time it will be necessary again to vote enough to

Supply - Agriculture
carry us to the end of the crop year, because the announcement has already been made that we are continuing this policy through the next crop year.
On the other suggestion that was made in regard to the amounts provided in each
province, I wonder if it would suit the hon. member if I were to place it on record rather than read it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The table follows:
Total Tonnage on Which Freight Assistance Has Been Paid and the Amount of Money Paid in Claims from October, 1941, to May 31, 1951
Average
Hate
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
British Cblumbia	
Newfoundland	
Grand totals for the period
Per Ton
	Total Amount	Over This
Total Tons	of Money	Period11,494,190	$54,825,158.08	$4.7810,168,045	59,117,409.40	5.811,195,439	9,615,800.95	8.041,419,281	12,481,768.90	8.79401,629	3,554,080.65	8.852,359,489	15,126,154.47	6.4129,379	606,900.10	20.6627,067,452	$155,327,272.55	$5.74


Robert Fair: Before this item carries may I say that we have no objection whatsoever to the subsidy being paid so that the feeders and farmers in other sections of the country that cannot grow grain as well as we can may have the benefit of our grain to produce livestock for Canada and the export markets.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to say I am pleased with the assurance the minister has given us tonight. I believe that is the first official statement to the effect that there is going to be a fund sufficient to carry this policy through for the entire fiscal year. The main estimates provide only for expenditures until July 31.
There has been a good deal of uncertainty and of misgiving in the maritime provinces among the dairy people, the stock raisers and the poultry raisers as to the continuance of this grant. In recent years they have been relying upon it. Their occupations require them to make preparations far in advance so as to build up their herds, provide buildings and so on. It is most essential that they know-and they should have known even before this-what they may receive. I might say that disappointment was expressed, and complaints were made by some of the agricultural representatives that they had not been told. However, I am pleased with the announcement made this evening by the minister.
I would point out that this grant is not only of great benefit to the stock raisers in eastern Canada, but is also for the benefit of the grain producers in the west, because it gives them a market they would not otherwise have for a large proportion of their

production of feed and coarse grains. One used to hear the complaint that the producers of dairy products in European countries could get feed grains cheaper than we could get them in eastern Canada.
I shall not say anything more, but on behalf of the stock raisers and poultry raisers of eastern Canada I express appreciation of the positive announcement he has given tonight with respect to the provision in connection with freight on feed grains for the entire fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40.	Agricultural lime assistance, $435,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Is that $435,000 paid to
the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is provided that it be
spent in the different provinces; but in actual practice it is nearly all in Quebec and the maritime provinces where lime is required.


John Alpheus Charlton: Does any of this money
come to Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: About $15,000 or $20,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is that part of the provincial grant we obtain from the province, or is the provincial grant separate?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is our part of the
payment, which supplements their payment.


John Alpheus Charlton: A percentage of their payment? '	.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister's department given consideration to paying a similar sub-' sidy on other types of fertilizers? Lime is

not used in the west as a fertilizer, while other types are used. I am wondering how these payments on lime came to be established, and if the department is giving consideration to subsidizing other fertilizers.


James Garfield Gardiner: During the war we were subsidizing some other fertilizers. At the end of that period, for what we thought were good reasons, we discontinued all with the exception of this one.


Percy Ellis Wright: The government was subsidizing some other fertilizers during the war?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: I understand those subsidies were dropped. Has any consideration been given to their re-establishment?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was only a short time ago. We did consider the whole matter at that time and we decided it was not something we should carry on from Ottawa. It is being done provincially. The types of fertilizers used in different places across Canada are quite different. For instance there are certain large areas where this particular type is not used at all. For that reason it was looked upon as something that more properly could be carried on in the different provinces, in accordance with their needs.


Percy Ellis Wright: But at the present time you are subsidizing lime which is used only in certain areas. I understand most of it is used in the maritime provinces. I have no objection to that; indeed I think it is a good idea, and it is carried out in many countries. The subsidization of fertilizers is done in most agricultural countries, as a matter of fact. I should think that when the government is subsidizing lime in certain areas it should give consideration to subsidizing the use of fertilizers in other areas, so that there would be a similar policy across the country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where lime is used in considerable quantities it is usually on the least productive of our lands. That is the only reason for providing assistance from the central government as well as the provincial governments, where that condition prevails. We have not thought it advisable to go into other lines in this country. I realize there are other countries where they have only a central government, and where it does all that kind of thing. But in a federated country like Canada we think it is better for the provincial government to take care of matters of this kind in accordance with the needs of the area, rather than that we should take care of it.


Percy Chapman Black: How is the money actually spent? I understood that most of this $435,000 applied to special expenditures, and
Supply - Agriculture
more particularly in the maritime provinces. The provincial governments there also have a lime policy under which they are able to give fairly cheap lime to the farmers requiring it. They do not use one-tenth as much as should be used for our kind of agriculture.
How is this lime distributed? Is it by bonus, or does the federal department work in conjunction with the provincial government? How much of it goes to the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?


James Garfield Gardiner: The position is as was suggested in the hon. member's question. The administration is carried on entirely by the provinces. We simply add to the amount they are spending. We pay $1.25 a ton on the amount, and the province carries on the administration. It is their policy; we assist them financially, that is all.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand the federal government gives a grant of $1.25 a ton on all the lime used for agricultural purposes in the maritime provinces. How is that distributed in the three provinces I mentioned?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to give details of policy and distribution. Our inspectors go down to check it, and they are satisfied the money has been properly spent in the policy put into effect by the provinces. We simply give them a grant which assists them in putting out more of it to the farmers than they would be able to do if they had only their own money.


Percy Chapman Black: I am not question^ ing the expenditure as I think it is most desirable. Can the minister give the figures for each province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of the expenditure is made on transportation and some for the purchase of the lime but the total amounts
were as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 23,174.62
Nova Scotia	 89,267.62
New Brunswick	 68,123.80
Quebec	 196,234.39
Ontario	 24,377.99
Newfoundland	 5,315.17
British Columbia	 28,325.21
Total	 $434,818.80


John Alpheus Charlton: Did I understand the minister to say that the government pays $1.25 a ton subsidy?


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay 60 per cent of what the province pays up to $1.25 per ton.


Arthur Laing: I think a proper definition should be used in connection with this item because lime is not a fertilizer, lime is a soil amendment which is used to correct acidity
4606 .

Supply - Agriculture
in our soil. Owing to the rainfall in the coastal area the soil becomes highly acid. This matter is not of the same interest to the central provinces because there the trouble is alkaline rather than acid. There is no relationship between fertilizers and lime and I think the definition should be changed. The program is operated jointly with the provinces and has been of great benefit to British Columbia because of the high acid content of our coastal soils.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not agree with the hon. member that lime is not a fertilizer. A fertilizer is used to correct some condition in the soil, and that is what lime is used for, to correct an acid condition. We have to use phosphorus and nitrogen in our soil to correct the lack of those elements.


George Matheson Murray: I wonder when there will be an extension of transportation facilities to the Peace river bloc within British Columbia. At the present time no assistance is being given to British Columbia along these lines. Supposing you were shipping material from Ottawa to Windsor, would you ship it by way of Montreal? No, you would not. But in British Columbia we have to ship it from the Peace river by way of Edmonton in order to get to our natural market on the sea coast.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
41.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $5,536,000.
Mr. Harkness:: I notice that this vote is down by some $318,000 and I wonder if that is due to the department anticipating that there will be fewer hogs marketed this year or to the fact that there will be fewer quality hog carcasses marketed?


James Garfield Gardiner: We expect the same number this year. We did overestimate last year and we did not require all that was voted.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, you did not use up the vote of last year by some $300,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is that decrease.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says he
anticipates the same number of hog marketings this year, but is it not a fact that up to date the number of marketings is down considerably from last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are running about seven per cent below last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you expect much heavier marketings this fall than took place last fall?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right. The breedings we have a record of indicate that there will be more this fall.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you anticipate that the number will be enough to bring the total up to approximately the same as last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: About the same.


John Alpheus Charlton: There was only $4,982,437 used last year which is over $600,000 less than the estimate. Is the minister suggesting that hog production this year will require $600,000 more for bonuses than was required last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the question?


John Alpheus Charlton: There was only $4,982,000 expended last year whereas the vote this year is for $5,536,000, indicating an increase over last year in the neighbourhood of $550,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: The difference is $318,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: The expenditures for 1949-50 are shown on page 108 as being $4,982,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: The total expenditure for the complete year last year was $5,070,991.10. As I said a moment ago, the vote for last year was overestimated. This year the figure is estimated at $5,536,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I say, the expenditure for 1949-50 shown on page 108 is $4,982,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is a year behind us; he is speaking about 1949-50 and I am speaking about 1950-51. The expenditure for the fiscal year 1949-50* was $4,937,031.22, and the expenditure for the next year was $5,070,991.10.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At the bottom of page 108
it states "actual to January 31,	1951,
$4,041.88." Then the next line shows "estimated for balance of year, $1,263,544." The minister no doubt has the actual figure for what was paid last year, and I wonder if he could give us that actual figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just gave it. I have read it twice already-$5,070,991.10.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, it was
about $260,000 less than you had estimated for the latter part of the year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: Before the item
carries, would the minister put on the record the distribution of this bonus on hogs by provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the maritimes, which
are all listed together, the figure is $205,252.43; for Quebec, $1,198,944.41; for Ontario, $1,934,588.55; for Manitoba, $329,810; for Saskatchewan, $157,665; for Alberta, $543,169.54, and for British Columbia, $240,419. That just brings it up to February 24, 1951. Then there have been

added to that similar amounts in each of the provinces bringing the total up to $5,070,991.10.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-[DOT]
43. To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: This is an item of $500,000 for assistance in the replacement of maple production equipment. I think I asked a question about this last year, and it was supposed to carry over a period of ten years. What year was this started? What is the total that has been paid, and to what province has it been paid?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it was started in
1937 or 1938. It was suspended during the war years and it has been resumed since the war. The amount for this year is $500,000. We spend it in three ways. The province puts up a similar amount to what we pay and the farmer has to pay a similar amount.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it just paid to the province of Quebec?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just in Quebec.


John Alpheus Charlton: Apparently it had to do
with some poor equipment they procured. Is that equipment still in existence? Are you still replacing that first batch of equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as it has been
removed for different farmers it has disappeared entirely, but there is still some of it that has not been removed. Some farmers have not yet been dealt with.


John Alpheus Charlton: They are still using that
equipment that was supposed to be condemned?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Maple syrup made
with this equipment is used for making cigarettes, and it will not poison you as long as you smoke it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Why are they still allowed to use it?


James Garfield Gardiner: They export this syrup
to the United States for use in making cigarettes. The first difficulty arose in 1937 or 1938. We were shipping syrup from Quebec into the United States containing lead. A lead covering had been put on the tin to prevent it from rusting. The buckets were rusting in the sugar bush. In order to prevent that they put this lead covering on them and sold that equipment in the province of Quebec. Then it was found that under certain conditions, with sap standing in the buckets, some of the lead got into the sap and the Americans condemned the 80709-293	[DOT]
Supply - Agriculture
syrup. Then they agreed to take the syrup and use it in the manufacture of cigarettes for sweetening the tobacco. They agreed to use it for that purpose provided these buckets would be changed, and we are gradually getting along to the time when we will be shipping all pure syrup there.


John Alpheus Charlton: None of this equipment
was sold in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to my knowledge. I
am quite sure there could not have been or they would have been after us to do the same thing, and they never have.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the total amount
that has been spent on this particular item since 1938?


James Garfield Gardiner: $2,349,000. That is eight
years' expenditure.


John Alpheus Charlton: From 1938 it has been paid every year?


James Garfield Gardiner: In eight years there has been $2,349,000 spent. I think there was some expenditure earlier than that, but this may be the first year that it was made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Herridge:: Would you mind reverting to item 42? I could not be heard on account of the confusion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rose to speak on item 42, Mr. Chairman, but was not successful in being recognized.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: With unanimous consent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that would be reasonable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
42.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,100,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the committee very much. I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that we have two cheese factories in British Columbia and one happens to be in my constituency. It is a small factory that has been of great assistance to the farmers who have ready access to a market for fluid milk. The manager of the factory has brought to my attention that the ninety-day storage clause of the Pure Foods Act is a great hardship to them financially, and in addition it prevents them selling fresh cheese to a considerable number of people who only eat fresh cheese and do not eat cheese after it has been kept for ninety days. I have carried on some correspondence with the pure foods and drugs department, and have been

Supply - Agriculture
informed by them that the regulations are occasioned by the danger of typhoid carriers and that sort of thing. However, at the same time I have learned that, while regulations of that sort have been in effect in certain states of the United States, they have been changed. In several states they now permit the sale of fresh cheese. In view of the circumstances of some of those manufacturing cheese and the situation in the United States, can the minister give the house any information with respect to the situation in Canada, and whether there is a likelihood of relaxing these restrictions for cheese producers producing in disease free areas and producing pasteurized cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that it was necessary to come back to this item to discuss this matter because it really has not anything to do with the item. The regulation is really a health regulation, and it is a matter which was dealt with quite recently in order to make it more binding than it was before. The reason for that was a typhoid epidemic in the province of Alberta in which several people lost their lives, and it was traced back to cheese which had not been properly matured. That is the claim that was made long before pasteurization was known of at all, that if you made cheese from milk and properly cured it you were then safeguarded against anything of that kind being in the cheese. It has been proven quite recently that there were some people who contracted typhoid from the use of cheese which had not been properly cured. The health regulations make it necessary to mature it for ninety days before selling it. That is what the regulation is. I could not say we would undertake to have it changed. That would have to be considered by the department of health.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,000,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: This and the next item deal with prairie farm rehabilitation, water storage and water conservation projects, and there is a decrease in these votes of some $2,800,000. I know the different departments have been asked to cut back their estimates as much as possible in view of the rearmament program, but I think this is one item under which we might have spent at least as much as in former years. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has been of immense benefit to western Canada. Unfortunately during the war we had to get by with a minimum expenditure for this purpose, but a great many people in western Canada hoped that after the war we could go ahead with this rehabilitation and do a real job. I would like

the minister to tell us just how much under these two estimates or any other estimates is going to be spent on the South Saskatchewan river project this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: This item is down $750,000. The next one is down $2,081,515. Last year we bought the Canada Land and Irrigation project for which we paid $2J million. The reduction of $2 million is approximately the amount we paid for that project last year. We are not purchasing any irrigation projects this year; in fact that was the only time we ever purchased one. So this does not really mean a reduction in the actual amount of money being spent on this work. I believe the amount will be up compared with every year but last year, when we spent that amount on that project. The $750,000 is simply a reduction in the item for this year due to the fact that we are spending so much money on defence and other things. The amount under this item last year I think was the highest we ever had. It had been increasing year by year, but this year we were asked to reduce, and we did so.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is there another vote under which the South Saskatchewan river project comes?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; this is the item, and I was just coming to that. The amount provided here in connection with the South Saskatchewan is $1 million. Just how much is going to be spent I cannot say. We will try to spend a considerable part of it, but whether we can spend that amount on the South Saskatchewan I am not sure. Just in passing I might say that since \ye discussed the question previously I have found out some things which are a little difficult for me to understand. We are being urged from all quarters, particularly by at least one provincial government, to spend money on the South Saskatchewan. This program, which was agreed to by all concerned, involves the passing of orders in council by the three provincial governments endorsing the division of water made by the dominion-provincial water powers board. As yet no provincial government has passed an order in council, so even if we had $5 million we could not proceed. We have been urging them to get that done, but they keep asking for more information. We have given all the information we have and we hope to have the orders in council passed in due course, but I believe they should be passed before we are urged to go ahead with the project, if it is decided to go ahead with it.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not the reason the project is being held up.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the reason we could not go ahead with it if we wanted to.


Percy Ellis Wright: I understand that these orders in council have to be passed by the three provinces before the dominion will be prepared to go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a question of what the dominion would be prepared to do. We tried to get the provinces to agree to have the water board .make the final settlement. They would not agree; they said the matter would 'have to be consented to by the governments of the provinces before the division of water would be acceptable. That must be done by order in council of the provinces, and that order in council has not been passed by any province.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the point I was making, that the three provinces have to pass these orders in council agreeing among themselves on the division of the water before the dominion government will be prepared to go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not before the dominion government is prepared to go ahead; before the dominion government can go ahead.


Percy Ellis Wright: No doubt the orders in council will be passed long before the dominion government is ready or prepared to go ahead. There is one further question I want to ask. It has been reported that a bridge is to be built by the dominion government over the North Saskatchewan river at or near the boundary between Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is there any vote in the estimates for that project?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know who made the report, but if it were to be done it would not be under any of these votes. It would not be done by this department. For many years the dominion government has been building bridges where one end would be in one province and the other in another, but that is not done under this department. The bridge on the boundary line north of Lloyd-minster is the one the hon. member means, I presume.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume the river runs across the boundary line at that point at an angle sufficiently off 180 degrees to permit one end of the bridge to be in one province and the other end in the other province, and the two provinces have made application to this government for some assistance in putting that bridge across. The general practice has been for the provinces to build the bridge, actually, with the assistance of this
Supply - Agriculture
government. That is the case with the bridge across the Ottawa river north of here, where one end is in Quebec and the other end is in Ontario. The bridge is really built by the provinces.


Robert Fair: The Minister of Public Works is sitting beside the Minister of Agriculture and perhaps he could tell me whether there is a grant for that purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: His estimates are coming up after mine are finished.


Mr. Quelch:: For a number of years the Department of Agriculture has been carrying out engineering surveys in connection with the Red Deer river diversion project. When the estimates of the minister were before the house last year he said he hoped that by the end of 1950 these surveys would have progressed to the point where it might be possible for the federal government to enter into an agreement with the provincial governments regarding this project. Can the minister say what progress has been made in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not in a position to state that we can go ahead with the project, though we have done a good deal of the engineering. The program has been that we would proceed with the St. Mary's project first and then the Bow river project, both of which we have undertaken. Then if it was considered that we should put in the dam on the South Saskatchewan we would proceed with that, and after that the Red Deer project would be considered.


Percy Ellis Wright: The other day I asked the minister in regard to the amount of money being spent out of The Pas on surveys in the Saskatchewan and Carrot rivers area, and he said he would give me the information when we reached his estimates.


James Garfield Gardiner: About $60,000 or $70,000, I have not got the exact figure.


Percy Ellis Wright: Have all the surveys been completed? Are there any reports available?


James Garfield Gardiner: None I have are completed.


Percy Ellis Wright: No preliminary reports have been made?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only preliminary reports are the kind that are made from time to time. I think the director was up in that district on one occasion, met the people, and indicated that they could arrive at certain conclusions from the information that is available.


Percy Ellis Wright: There has been no official
report.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not need to take up very much time of the committee, because I have
80709-293:

Supply - Agriculture
had conversations with the minister and his department concerning the Assiniboine river and the work the P.F.R.A. are doing. Last time I asked the minister about it he had not the exact amount that had been set aside. Could he give that now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Would the member mind waiting until we get to the supplementaries? I shall take them right after this, and there is an item in the supplementaries for it.


John Horne Blackmore: It seems only proper that my constituency should express its appreciation of the work the P.F.R.A. has done in the construction of the Lethbridge water conservation project. It is intended to officially open that project this year on July 16, and I believe the minister has been asked to attend the ceremony. We of the Lethbridge federal riding should therefore be thankful to all those who have planned the project, and to the members of parliament throughout the country who have supported it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
47.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $516,344.
Solon Earl Low: I should like to ask the minister if he will, before he leaves his estimates, in the light of the year's experience he has had with the amendments passed to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1950, consider bringing in another amendment now to get away from the inequities the former amendment has caused in the administration of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the moment I can just place on the record the results of the activities under that section during the past year. This is for the 1950 crop. The acreage by provinces which has been denied assistance under that section is as follows: Manitoba, 837 acres; Saskatchewan, 814 acres; and the Peace river bloc in Alberta and British Columbia, 54,490 acres. That would indicate that there is perhaps something happening there that ought to be looked into. I have given instructions to our inspectors to make a complete check of the whole matter.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to thank the minister for his consideration. How many regional offices does the prairie farm assistance division have?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are only two regional offices, Regina and Edmonton.


Solon Earl Low: Are the reports by the field men in the area covered by the Edmonton office

channelled back into Regina for action or is the Edmonton office authorized to pass on applications?


James Garfield Gardiner: The plan followed is that we have a board that has the right to pass on all of the different municipalities or different townships, and that board meets from time to time. They go through the Edmonton office and from the Edmonton office to the Regina office, and are considered through the Regina office by the board. That is the plan, but in actual practice there are not very many of them that have to be specially considered by the board, but the board must have access to those from all over the three provinces.


Robert Fair: Will the minister be good enough to place on the record, as he has done in other years, information concerning the number of claims paid in the various provinces, and the amounts? He could just place it on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I have permission to put it on Hansard without reading it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The information is as follows: Payments under the P.F.A. Act in Crop Year 1950 To April 24, 1951
	No. of	Total
	Awards	Payment
Manitoba 	.. 1,881	$ 205,500.00Saskatchewan 	.. 22,235	4,938,467.75Alberta 	.. 21,610	3,561,881.25British Columbia ....	.. 1,142	189,386.00Totals	
$8,895,285.00
Eligible Townships in 1950 Crop Year
Manitoba	 97
Saskatchewan	 885
Alberta	 953
British Columbia	 57
Total	 1,992


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
49. Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $250,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: Where is this money to be spent? I notice there is a reduction of $100,000 for this year, but in the supplementaries there is an additional $100,000. Just what is the meaning of that?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is vote 49, for land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council. There is another $100,000 in the supplementaries.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why was it taken off and then put back in the supplementaries?


James Garfield Gardiner: At that time it was not definitely known what we would require this year. We were clearing up some tracts in Manitoba and elsewhere. Now we have definite information we can go ahead with the others.


Percy Ellis Wright: In what province is this $250,000 to be spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is $100,000 in Ontario and $160,000 in Manitoba.


John Alpheus Charlton: Did the minister say $160,000 in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, $100,000 in Ontario.


John Alpheus Charlton: And where was the $160,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was $160,000 for Manitoba.


Percy Ellis Wright: This money which is being spent in Manitoba: where is it to be spent?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the Dauphin area, and
the Manitoba government is paying dollar for dollar.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is that on the same basis with the Ontario government, dollar for dollar?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and it is being spent along the shores of lake Erie.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is along the shores of lake Erie?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: May we call it eleven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alphonse Fournier: There are only two items left, and I would appeal to the house for co-operation so that I could have another minister's estimates dealt with. I think we have had a reasonable discussion.


Percy Chapman Black: I think we should co-operate with the minister in putting this through.


John Horne Blackmore: I am desirous of asking a series of questions under vote 51.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50. Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $800,000.
Frank Thomas Stanfield: I should like to thank the minister and his department for the interest which they have taken in the rehabilitation of the marshlands in our province, and also for the good work of the engineer, Mr. Parker. I know the farmers in my constituency are
Supply - Agriculture
very grateful for getting their lands fixed up again. We were wondering just what program the minister and his department intended carrying out during the coming year, especially in the province of Nova Scotia.
I would be grateful if the minister would give a brief explanation of that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I take it from what was
said a few moments ago that the members of the committee have no objection to going over the supplementaries. These same two items are covered again in the supplementaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A few moments ago the
Minister of Public Works asked for co-operation to get through two items, but now the Minister of Agriculture mentions his supplementaries. There are 19 items in the supplementary estimates. I suggest that it is after eleven o'clock and it is Saturday night.


Alphonse Fournier: We will not take up
the supplementary estimates tonight.


James Garfield Gardiner: But the item I have been
asked about is in the supplementaries. If you pass these two items together we will be through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


William Scottie Bryce: I am anxious to get my
answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: Talk to your friend who is in front of you.


William Scottie Bryce: I will keep him quiet; you
give me the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No chance.


James Garfield Gardiner: I may say to the hon.
member who raised the question of the marshlands that we are figuring on about half as much more, which we are providing for in the supplementaries, than is shown in this item, which means that the expenditure this year will be very considerably higher than it was last year.
Then, on the other question that my hon. friend speaks of, there is $75,000 put into the supplementaries to deal with the work that must be done on the Assiniboine river in Manitoba. Last year those works were done under public works, but the item was transferred to this department, and there is $75,000 in the supplementaries for it this year.


Percy Chapman Black: Before this item passes I want to support the remarks of the hon. member for Colchester Plants. It is a very important expenditure for a great many sections in the different constituencies at the

Supply - Agriculture
head of the bay of Fundy. I should like the minister to put on Hansard the program for the current year, the different projects they propose undertaking and the estimated cost. It will be satisfactory to put it on Hansard instead of reading it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would like to say this.
What I am putting on Hansard are only the approved ones. There are quite a number of others that are under consideration and, will be gone ahead with. I am not in a position tonight to say which ones in particular, but I will put on the record those that are approved.


Percy Chapman Black: What does the
minister mean by "approved", approved by the commission or approved by his department at Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: By both. It is order in
council approval that covers those. We have to pass a different order in council for each
project. The list follows:
N.S. 3	Falmouth great dike '	
$24,000"	4	Queen Anne	
11,100"	8	Grand Pre	
10,500"	11	Truro Dykeland park	
26,100"	13	Dentiballis	
8,000"	14	Elderkin	
13,000"	16	Castle Frederick	
27,700"	17 Falmouth village	t	
11,100"	21 Upper Nappan	
27,800"	23 Masstown	,. . .	13,000"	27	Newport town	
28,200"	38	St. Croix	
61,200"	40	Fort Belcher	
10,000"	42 Amherst point	:	
6,000"	44	Converse	
12,600N.B. 5	Westcock	
25,000"	6 Taylor village	;	72,500"	13	Dorchester	
29,000"	14	Lower Coverdale	
10,000"	19	Beaumont	
7,500"	21	Memramcook west	
33,000*"	24	Aulac	
32,000"	30	Calkins	
28,000


Mr. George:: I. want to associate myself with the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon, member for Colchester-Hants in expressing on behalf of my constituents their appreciation of the work done by the marshland rehabilitation board, here and in the mari-times. They are doing excellent work there, and because of the. late hour I will not elaborate on it. '


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the item is carried may I say to the hon. member for Lethbridge that the same item is covered again in the supplementary estimates. If he will permit me to get item 51 through we can discuss it under the supplementaries.


John Horne Blackmore: That is agreeable to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we wish to take up legislation, and I will give the remainder of the legislation which is on the order paper: Bill No. 399, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the railway of the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company; Bill No. 375; to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; a resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture respecting the Dairy Industry Act; Bill No. 400, to amend the Supreme Court Act; Bill No. 391, to amend the Criminal Code; then a resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice to present a bill to amend the Judges Act. There are two resolutions on the order paper; one, item No. 14, is in the name of the Minister of Finance. I believe he has spoken to some members of the opposition. He would like to move that resolution, have first reading of the bill and then let the matter drop there so that hon. members could receive a copy of the bill. It has to do with the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act-a revision of it. If there is no objection that will come up sometime during Monday. Then there is a resolution in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, respecting the Canada Lands Surveys Act. The minister would wish also to move this resolution so that the bill would receive first reading and be distributed, but we would not proceed with these two bills.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
38.	Marketing of. agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Terminable services-
39.	Freight assistance on western feed grains $4,500,000.
40.	Agricultural lime assistance, $435,000.
41.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $5,536,000.
Special-	. ..	.
42.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,100,000.

43.	To provide assistance for the replacement of maple production equipment, $500,000.
44.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under regulations to be approved by the governor in council, $50,000.
45.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,000,000.
46.	Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces, $6,406,985.
47.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $516,344.
Supply [DOT]- Agriculture
48.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $404,592.
49.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $250,000.
50.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $800,000.
51.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $91,051.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 25, 1951